STRATEGY FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM 2011- · PDF fileCouncil for the reform of the law...

1

STRATEGY

FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM

2011-2015

Executive summary

The need for Strategy

Developing a comprehensive reform Strategy has become necessary for the creation of a common

framework covering all justice sector reform efforts in the Republic of Moldova, to ensure the

sustainable development of the sector through realistic and concrete actions.

Currently there are many concepts for reforming the many justice sector institutions, each setting

different targets and actions, dealing with only narrow segments of the justice sector. This Strategy

comes with an innovative approach and seeks to integrate all efforts and intentions of reform under a

unified framework to ensure the coherent, consistent and sustainable reform of the justice sector as a

whole.

Simultaneously, the Strategy builds institutional framework to coordinate the reform actions and

assistance from the development partners in the justice sector. Practical implementation and

capitalization of the Strategy components will help strengthen a fair justice sector, with zero tolerance

to corruption, for the country's sustainable development and greater responsibility towards litigants.

Strategy Objectives

The overall objective of this Strategy is to build a justice sector which is affordable, efficient,

independent, transparent, professional and accountable to society, that meets European standards,

ensures the rule of law and the observance of human rights and contributes to safeguarding society’s

trust in justice.

Specific objectives of the Strategy are as follows:

- strengthen the independence, accountability, impartiality, efficiency and transparency of the

judicial system;

- streamline the pre-judicial investigation process to ensure respect for human rights, ensure the

security of each person and crime rate reduction;

- improve the institutional framework and processes to ensure effective access to justice: efficient

legal aid, investigation of cases and enforcement of court decisions within reasonable periods of

time, upgrading the status of some legal professions related the justice system;

- promote and implement the principle of zero tolerance for corruption events in the justice

sector;

- implement measures by which the justice sector would help create a favourable climate for

sustainable economic development;

- ensure effective enforcement of human rights practices and legal policies;

- coordinate, determine and define the duties and responsibilities of key actors in the justice sector

to ensure inters-sector dialogue.

Pillars of the Strategy

I. Justice system

II. Criminal justice

III. Access to justice and enforcement of court decisions

IV. Integrity of the justice sector actors

2

V. Role of justice for the economic development

VI. Respect for human rights in the justice sector

VII. Well-coordinated, well-managed and accountable justice sector

Strategy Development Process

The Ministry of Justice developed this strategy after extensive public consultations and

consultations with key justice sector institutions. The starting point in developing the Strategy was to

identify factors that determine the need for reforms and problems to be solved to create a sector of

justice that is accessible, efficient, independent, transparent, professional and accountable to the society,

one that would meet the European standards and ensure the rule of law and human rights. Current

problems in the justice sector were determined by analysing the findings of reports produced by civil

society, international organizations, especially the evaluation report prepared by experts of the

European Union and publicly presented in June 2011 (hereinafter – the Evaluation Report), which is the

most recent and comprehensive document assessing the current status of the justice sector in the

Republic of Moldova.

The findings of the Ministry of Justice from monitoring the implementation of various laws

have been also analysed. As a result, 7 pillars of the Strategy were determined, with strategic directions,

specific intervention areas, execution deadlines, indicators of the implementation level, expected results

and responsible institutions being developed for each pillar. Combined execution of the respective areas

of intervention will lead to achieving the general objective of the Strategy.

Implementing the Strategy

Responsibility for implementing the Strategy rests with all the responsible institutions identified

in the Strategy. At the same time, in order to ensure a coherent implementation of the Strategy a

mechanism for monitoring its implementation, which will consist of seven working groups (one for

each pillar) and a steering group of the Strategy, will be created. These working groups will be

coordinated by the Ministry of Justice, within which a special structure responsible for the

implementation of the Strategy will be appointed. A periodic evaluation shall be performed as regards

the process of the Strategy implementation and the degree of achieving the objectives of the National

Council for the reform of the law enforcement bodies.

Relation to the strategic and budgetary planning

This Strategy is a preliminary step of the on-going process of strategic planning and

implementation of interventions in the justice sector. All institutions covered by the reform will develop

strategic development and funding plans in accordance with the strategic directions and specific areas

of intervention under the Strategy. To ensure internal consistency concerning funding of the entire

justice sector, the expenditures related to the Strategy implementation will be linked with the current

and future medium-term budgetary frameworks. Financial support on the part of the international

organizations working in the justice sector in the Republic Moldova, particularly those from the

European Union, shall be requested to implement certain aspects of the Strategy.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Summary

List of abbreviations

o Part 1. The reform context and the determining factors

o Part 2. The strategy development process

o Part 3. Goal and objectives of the strategy

o Part 4. Pillars of the justice sector reform and the strategic directions

o Part 5. Specific intervention areas

o Part 6. Financial implications

o Part 7. Strategy implementation, monitoring and evaluation

o Part 8. Analysis of strategy implementation risks

4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SJSR Strategy for justice sector reform

MJ Ministry of Justice

SCM Superior Council of Magistrates

CCECC Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption

MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs

GP General Prosecutor’s Office

NCSGLA National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Assistance

NIJ National Institute of Justice

EU European Union

5

Part 1. THE REFORM CONTEXT AND THE DETERMINING FACTORS

The term "justice sector" used throughout this Strategy refers to the institutions and structures that have

the main or auxiliary contribution as regards the organization and execution of justice in the Republic

of Moldova. Thus, the "justice sector" includes primarily the judiciary as well as the whole range of

authorities and relationships between them that contribute to justice, namely prosecution bodies, justice

sector related legal professions (lawyers, notaries, mediators, court enforcement officers, legal experts,

managers of insolvency proceedings, translators/interpreters), the probation system, the system of

enforcing court decisions, the prison system, the Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman, the

Constitutional Court. The Strategy concerns administrative authorities, such as the Parliament,

Government, Superior Council of Magistracy, to the extent that their activity is related to the adoption

and implementation of laws relevant to the justice sector.

The reform of the justice sector has permanently been an issue in the attention of the authorities of the

Republic of Moldova. A large set of strategic documents referring to this area has been adopted during

last years, among them being: Strategy for the Judiciary Consolidation1, Strategy for the Development

of the Law Enforcement System2, Concept of the Penitentiary System

3, Concept of the Judiciary

Budgeting4 etc. In parallel, a number of laws have been adopted that have conceptually reformed

certain key institutions of the justice system: the Judiciary, the Prosecution offices, the Bar, the Notary,

the Penitentiary system, the Ombudsman office, the Enforcement system, etc. The adoption of the Law

on Guaranteed State Legal Assistance, the Law on Probation and the Law on Mediation etc. has

resulted in the introduction of new mechanisms and institutions into the Justice system.

In spite of substantial institutional changes and in spite of amendments to the legal framework, no

integrity of the justice system has been achieved yet, for the reason that these changes haven’t ensured a

qualitatively new level of activity of the stakeholders in this sector and have not lead to strengthening a

justice system that would be equitable, fair and oriented on the necessities of the litigants and providing

some high-quality services, accessible for the litigants.

The analysis of the implementation of strategic documents in the field reveals the problems faced by the

justice sector, namely that the courts are not managed effectively, the promotion of judges and

prosecutors is insufficiently transparent and is not based on merit, not all components of the Superior

Council of Magistracy work effectively, the quality of the services provided by the justice system

related professions is inadequate, there are no effective mechanisms of accountability of the justice

sector actors, the pre-court phase is unduly complex, there are no effective mechanisms to ensure a

child friendly justice, the perception of the corruption spreading throughout the justice sector is

alarmingly high.

Thus, in the Declaration on the state of justice in the Republic of Moldova and the actions needed to

improve the situation of the judiciary, approved by Parliament Decision no. 53-XVIII of October 30,

2009, the Parliament has noted with concern that the judiciary in Moldova is seriously affected by

corruption. The statement also noted that such an involution of the Moldovan judiciary was possible

also due to: neglect or selective application by the Superior Council of Magistrates of the law governing

the liability of judges, its indulgence; lack of response from the Superior Council of Magistracy and

prosecution bodies to the judges’ actions, which sometimes are of criminal nature; lack of response and

resistance to intimidation of the judiciary and political pressure coming from representatives of the

government; lack of transparency of justice and the SCM activity, especially concerning the selection,

1 Parliament Decree No. 174-XVI dated 19 July, 2007 2 Government Decree No. 1393 dated 12 December 2007 3 Government Decree No. 1624 dated 31 December 2003 4 Parliament Decree No. 39 dated 18 March 2010

6

appointment, promotion and punishment of judges; failure of initial and continuous training of judges;

inadequate provision of materials for judges; “syndication” of the judiciary power etc..

These findings of the high legislation forum demonstrate that until now, professional, moral and ethical

standards have not become an important part of the professionals’ work in the sector, which led to

diminishing confidence of the society in the justice system. The low level of public trust in the justice

sector is a dangerous phenomenon, because it can generate a general distrust in the effectiveness and

integrity of their public authorities and even of the state in general.

Under these conditions, the reform of the justice sector could not be approached in a fragmentary way,

for the reason that an efficient and effective realisation of justice implies an efficient and consistent

activity of a number of institutions, namely the justice system, the Constitutional Court, the Prosecutors

office, the criminal investigation bodies, the Bar, the notary, the system of enforcement of court

decisions, the penitentiary system etc.

Following the analysis of the strategic documents previously adopted and of the state of the justice

sector, as well as consultations with key players in this sector, several factors that determine the need

for reforms (reform determining factors) were identified. These factors have helped define the overall

purpose and specific objectives and the pillars on which the reforms are based, strategic directions and

specific intervention areas addressed in the Strategy, as described in Parts 3, 4 and 5.

The reform determining factors are represented graphically in Figure 1 and thoroughly described below.

Figure no.1. Reform determining factors in the justice sector

Low level of public trust in justice

The level of public trust in justice is the litmus paper reflecting the mood of society and its

attitude towards justice. It is clear that the analysis of the public perceptions of justice must include

both views of citizens, as beneficiaries of justice, as well as those of the representatives of the judiciary.

A series of polls show the low level of trust in justice. For example, biannual surveys conducted by the

Institute for Public Policies shall constantly include a question regarding the degree of public trust in

state institutions, including the trust in justice. The dynamic analysis of “very confident” and “I have no

faith” types of answers to the question “How much do you trust the justice?”, obtained in the period

2005-2011, shows a “floating” degree of trust of the Moldovan citizens in the judiciary. As of March

Low level of public trust in

justice

EU integration aspirations

of the Republic of

Moldova

Reform determining

factors in the justice

sector

Quasi-general perception

of the advanced degree

of corrution in the justice

sector

Creation of an

environment favorable

for the economic

growth and

investments

7

2009, there has been an alarming trend of decrease as regards the degree of citizens’ trust in the

judiciary, compared to the level of total trust in the judiciary, with the maximum gap being reached in

May 2011, when it was found that only 1 % of people surveyed said they had complete trust in the

judiciary, while 42% said they had no trust in the judiciary.

Quasi-general perception of the advanced degree of corruption in the justice sector

The Corruption Perception Index (CPI), calculated annually by Transparency International (TI), shows

that the population and the international community perceive the Republic of Moldova as a country

where corruption is widespread. In the past 12 years the value of this index for Moldova ranged

between 2.1 and 3.3 on a scale of 0-10, where lower values indicate a greater spread of corruption.

The 2010 Global Corruption Barometer (BGC), also conducted annually by TI, shows that 37% of

respondents in the Republic of Moldova resorted to bribery over the last 12 months (the average for CIS

is 32% and 5% for the EU member states). The results of the same survey show that the most corrupt

entities are considered to be (on a scale of 1-5): internal affairs bodies - 4,1, justice - 3.9, political

parties and civil servants - 3.8, Parliament, education system and private sector - 3.7. According to the

victimization survey conducted by the Soros-Moldova Foundation in 2010, 30% of Moldova's

population faced situations in which the citizens had to use bribe or asked to use bribe, or both, in 2009.

Creation of an environment favourable for the economic growth and investments

Sustainable economic results are one of the key long-term general objective of the Republic of

Moldova. Justice can play a significant role in stimulating economic growth and stability. To this end,

justice must show quality, efficiency and transparency in its work, the key elements to sustain

investment flows and develop relationships and business activities. The mechanisms for ensuring rapid

and effective resolution of disputes between commercial entities, supported by the justice sector, are

particularly important. Equally important for the sustainable growth are the systems used to regulate

and protect property rights and ensure the security of the legal reports.

EU integration aspirations of the Republic of Moldova

The European integration is a strategic objective of the foreign and domestic policy of the Republic of

Moldova, designed to ensure the creation of a system of internal security, stability and prosperity,

governed by democratic values and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. As a result,

Moldova's efforts have been and are focused on implementing the responsibility of external

commitments in relation to the EU (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European

Communities and their Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Moldova, on the other

hand, signed on November 28, 1994, entered into force on July 1, 1998, the EU-Moldova Action Plan

withing the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), signed on 22 February 2005 in Brussels) and in

relation to other European and international structures, while internally - for undertaking measures to

modernize the country politically, economically, socially, strengthening the political will necessary to

promote reforms and identify areas of intervention (Declaration of the Parliament of Moldova on

political Partnership to Achieve the Objectives of European Integration, unanimously passed by the

Parliament on March 24, 2005).

The EU and the civil society have repeatedly qualified as insufficient the efforts undertaken Moldovan

authorities towards the European integration of the Republic of Moldova. The same epithet has been

also used as regards the reforms undertaken by the Republic of Moldova in the justice sector, which are

considered to be sporadic, lacking finality and not having a well-defined concept or a well-shaped

strategy. In this context, in order to accomplish its European integration aspirations, the Republic of

Moldova pledges to make joint efforts to achieve justice reforms by promoting systemic, sustainable

and coherent policies.

8

Part 2. THE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

The methodology has been designed in a way to permit wide consultations and to ensure the consensus

of the key institutions of the justice sector of the Republic of Moldova with respect to the future

directions of the reform. The development process included four separate phases, illustrated in Figure 1

below.

Strategy Structure

This strategic document focuses on major problems of the justice sector in the Republic of Moldova,

which were highlighted in the evaluation reports on the current state of the justice sector, particularly in

the assessment report prepared by EU experts, publicly submitted in June 2011. These problems have

been classified into seven major areas, those in which reform will take place, which were called

“pillars”, similarly to the pillars used for the basement of every building. Each pillar will be

implemented individually, except pillars 4 and 7 that include measures applicable to all institutions

covered by other pillars.

The key elements of this Strategy are: general objective, specific objectives, pillars, strategic directions,

specific areas of intervention, indicators of the implementation level and expected results.

The implementation of specific areas of intervention produces desired results that quantify the

implementation indicators, thereby contributing to the achievement of strategic directions, which, in

turn, determine the progress in achieving specific goals and the general objective.

The specific objectives, specific intervention areas, implementation indicators and expected results are

found in the pillars of the strategy that, as mentioned above, were identified by their problems in the

justice sector. Similarly, the pillars include the institutions responsible for this process and deadlines for

achieving specific intervention areas.

The strategy suggests a sex-year implementation period. This timespan results from the current

opportunities to plan activities for the next six years, especially activities related to changes in the legal

and the institutional framework. The period of six years is an optimal one, which will allow realistic

planning activities, the period being also suggested by the authors for Evaluation Report.

Developing and passing the Strategy

The entire process of Strategy development was organized by the working group created by Ministry of

Justice Decree no. 213 of June 3, 2011. The process was structured so as to allow extensive

consultations and reaching consensus among key justice sector institutions in Moldova on future

directions of reform. The Strategy is to be passed by law by the Parliament.

The development process was divided in four separate phases, as presented in Figure no. 2.

Figure 2: Development phases of the Strategy for reform of the justice sector of the Republic of

Moldova

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Approval of the

working group

membership

Discuss the draft

strategy in the sector

working groups

Presentation of the

revised draft Strategy

(revised version) to

Presentation of the

draft Strategy (the

versions approved by

9

designated to develop

the draft of the

Strategy

Development of the

Strategy framework

(goal, pillars,

objectives) and of the

specific intervention

areas.

Strategy drafting and

its presentation to the

key institutions of the

justice sector and

civil society

(preliminary version).

Launch the first

round of discussions

on the draft Strategy.

created by the

Ministry of Justice.

Consultations

regarding the

Strategy with the key

institutions of the

justice sector and

representatives of the

civil society.

Public discussions on

the draft Strategy

(second round of

discussions).

Review the draft

Strategy based on

opinions, comments

and

recommendations

received.

the Government and

the National Council

for reform of the law

enforcement bodies.

The draft Strategy is

debated within the

coordinating Council

for the reform of the

law enforcement

bodies

The Government

approves the draft

Strategy.

the Government) to

be reviewed by the

Parliament.

The Parliament

passes the Strategy.

The process of Strategy implementation, monitoring and evaluation

Implementation process

The development of a Strategy Implementation Action Plan for the shall be started once the Parliament

passes the Strategy,

The Strategy Implementation Action Plan will include measures for each pillar. The measures included

in the Action Plan will be interconnected and will result from specific intervention areas provided for in

the Strategy, but at a much more detailed level than these ones. The measures will largely represent a

particularization of specific intervention areas within each strategic direction.

The action plan will be revised annually based on the evaluation report for each pillar, prepared by the

group responsible for monitoring the implementation of that pillar.

The Strategy is to be addressed as a living document the implementation of which will be consistently

monitored through the monitoring mechanism provided below. The Strategy can be amended if

necessary, but the intention is to have a stable strategic document, the implementation of which can be

adjusted as needed. For these reasons, the Strategy does not include precise measures of

implementation, but only specific intervention areas, which will be detailed in the Strategy

Implementation Action Plan. The resources required to implement the Strategy will be provided for in

the Action Plan.

Responsible institutions

When it comes to the Strategy implementation, the responsibility rests with all the responsible

institutions identified in the Strategy. At the same time, to ensure the coherent implementation of the

Strategy a mechanism for monitoring the implementation, consisting of seven working groups for each

10

area separately and a steering group to coordinate the Strategy implementation will be created. They

will be coordinated by the Ministry of Justice, within which a structure specialized in providing

technical assistance to the working groups will be designated.

Similarly, the National Council for the reform of law enforcement bodies will periodically evaluate the

implementation of the strategy and the progress of the objectives based on the information collected and

collated by the Ministry of Justice.

The Mechanism for monitoring the Strategy implementation

The working group for the Strategy implementation

A permanent working group, which will be responsible for the joint annual work plans and

implementation of all activities identified in the respective field, will be created for each pillar of the

Strategy. The working groups will be created and will operate within the Ministry of Justice. The

Minister of Justice shall appoint the chairman of each group on the recommendation of its members.

The groups will include representatives of key justice sector institutions covered by the respective

pillar, which will be appointed by the respective institutions, as well as civil society representatives.

The latter will be selected by the Ministry of Justice based on a public invitation and depending on

experience, motivation and previous involvement in the justice sector reform. The Ministry of Justice

will also invite foreign institutions operating in the field of justice and which are present in Moldova to

delegate experts to participate in the activities of the working groups.

The coordination group of the Strategy implementation

The coordination of activities between all working groups will be provided by a coordination group of

the Strategy implementation, created by a decree of the Minister of Justice. This group will include the

minister of justice, a deputy minister, a specialist of the Ministry of Justice responsible for coordinating

the implementation of the Strategy and chairmen of the working groups.

The working groups created for each pillar will develop the action plan, will monitor the

implementation level of that pillar and will draft annual reports on Strategy implementation. They will

meet in session according to the plan drafted, but not less than once a month. The Coordination Group

will draft the General Plan for Strategy Implementation, will monitor the implementation process and

prepare the annual report on the Strategy implementation based on the presentations submitted by the

working groups for each pillar. The Coordination Group will be also responsible for ensuring

dissemination of information in all working groups, organizing their joint meeting as necessary, but not

less frequently than once every three months. Finally, the Coordination Group will be responsible for

presenting information on the degree of Strategy implementation at the National Council for reform of

the law enforcement bodies.

Transparency of the justice sector reform and public relations

The Ministry of Justice will create a dedicated website for the justice sector reform on which current

information and progress in the justice sector reform will be placed. Civil society and key justice sector

institutions will be able to make suggestions and comment on the progress of this reform. The working

groups established to ensure Strategy implementation will be responsible for placing information and

collecting comments / suggestions on the website.

Finally, the Ministry of Justice will organize annual conferences with the participation of the civil

society and key justice sector institutions during which annual reports on the Strategy implementation

and other relevant information will be presented and discussed.

All these measures will help ensure transparency of the undertaken reforms and will provide to all those

interested a real possibility of involvement and participation in the reform process.

11

PART 3. GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE STRATEGY

This Strategy is designed to create a common framework for all efforts to reform the justice sector in

Moldova in order to develop the entire sector through realistic and concrete actions.

The general objective of the reform Strategy is to establish an accessible, efficient, independent,

transparent, professional and accountable to the society justice system, in compliance with the

European standards meant to ensure the rule of law and observance of human rights and contribute to

the public trust in the judiciary.

The Strategy pursues the realization of the following specific objectives:

- strengthen the independence, responsibility, efficiency and transparency of the justice system;

- improve the pre-judicial investigation process to ensure a guaranteed observance of human rights,

security for every person and decrease of the criminality level;

- improve the institutional framework and the framework of the processes ensuring an effective

access to justice, these including: effective legal assistance, examination of files and enforcement of

court decisions in reasonable terms, modernization of the status of a number of judicial professions

related to the justice system;

- promote and implement the zero tolerance principle with respect to the corrupted behaviour within

the justice sector;

- implement some by which the justice sector can contribute to the creation of a climate that would

be favourable for the sustainable development of economy;

- secure an effective observance of human rights during the application of legal practices and

policies;

- coordinate, establish and delineate powers and responsibilities of the main actors of the justice

system, as well as ensure the inter-sector dialogue.

The Strategy is designed to achieve the following general results:

- a justice system that would be fair, qualitative, responsible, with zero tolerance to corruption, which

would ensure the sustainable development of the country and would meet the needs of the litigants;

- an institutional framework to coordinate the reform actions and provide assistance to development

partners in the justice sector.

The expected results for each strategic direction are described in part 5 of the Strategy.

Part 4. PILLARS AND THE STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS OF THE JUSTICE SECTOR

REFORM

The justice sector reform is supposed to rely on seven fundamental pillars:

1. judicial system;

2. criminal justice;

3. access to justice and enforcement of court decisions;

4. integrity of actors of the justice sector;

5. role of justice for the economic growth;

6. observance of human rights in the justice sector;

7. Well-coordinated, well-managed and responsible justice sector.

12

Figure no. 3 Pillars of the justice sector reform

The justice sector reform

To reach the general objective and the specific objectives of this Strategy, a number of strategic

directions for the next six years have been identified. Strategic directions, shown in Figure No. 4, are

grouped under the reform pillar to which they belong. Specific intervention areas are determined for

each strategic direction, which are listed in Part 5 of the Strategy.

Figure 4: Strategic directions of the reform

PILLAR I

THE JUDICIAL

SYSTEM

General objective: build an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent and professional justice system accountable to the society, consistent with

the European standards and able to ensure the rule of law, the observance of human rights and contribute to ensuring the public trust in justice.

PILLAR II

THE CRIMINAL

JUSTICE

PILLAR III

ACCESS TO

JUSTICE AND

ENFORCEMENT

OF COURT

DECISIONS

PILLAR IV

INTEGRITY OF

ACTORS OF THE

JUSTICE

SECTOR

PILLAR V

ROLE OF

JUSTICE FOR

THE ECONOMIC

GROWTH

PILLAR VI

OBSERVANCE

OF HUMAN

RIGHTS IN THE

JUSTICE

SECTOR

PILLAR VII WELL-COORDINATED, WELL-MANAGED AND RESPONSIBLE JUSTICE SECTOR

13

Figure 5 indicates the existence of an interconnection of the strategic programmes. The implementation

of a set of directions influences the implementation of each of the other sets of directions.

The strategic directions have been divided according to specific intervention areas, the implementation

manner of which is described in Part 2 of this Strategy.

Pillar I. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Strategic directions: 1.1. Ensuring accessibility and independence

1.2. Higher transparency, efficiency and effectiveness

1.3. Higher professionalism of persons involved in the justice execution and their

accountability

Pillar II. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Strategic directions:

2.1. Revision of the concept and procedure of the pre-judicial phase

2.2. Strengthening the professionalism and independence of the prosecution office

2.3. Strengthening the professional capacities of individuals and of the crime

investigation bodies

2.4 Modernization of the statistical data collection system and of the system

evaluating the professional performances at individual and institutional levels. 2.5. Humanization of the criminal policy and streamlining the juvenile justice

Pillar III . ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND EXECUTION OF JUSTICE

Strategic directions

3.1. Strengthening the system providing free of charge legal assistance guaranteed by

the state

3.2. Strengthening the institutional capacities and the professional development of

representatives of professions related to the justice system (lawyers, notaries

mediators, executors of court judgements, judicial experts, administrators of the

insolvency procedure, translators/interpreters)

3.3. Effective and adequate enforcement of the judgements.

Pillar IV. STRENGTHENING THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUSTICE

SECTOR ACTORS THROUGH THE PROMOTION OF ANTI CORRUPTION

MEASURES AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICAL STANDARDS


4.1. Efficient and effective combating of corruption in the justice system

4.2. Strengthening the mechanisms facilitating the implementation of ethical standards

and anti corruptive behaviour at the level of all institutions of the justice sector

4.3. Developing in different segments of justice of a culture of zero tolerance to

corruption among the self administration bodies Pillar V. CONTRIBUTION OF JUSTICE TO THE ECONOMIC

GROWTH


5.1. Strengthening the system of alternative settlement of disputes.5.2. Improvement

of insolvency proceedings 5.3. Modernising the system of accounting and access to

information on registration of economic agents

Pillar VI OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE JUSTICE

SYSTEM


6.1. Strengthening the role of the Constitutional Court

6.2. Optimization of the national mechanism for the protection of human rights

6.3. Observance of international standards of human rights protection with all

imprisoned persons. Eradication of torture and ill treatment

6.4. Consolidation of the probation and penitentiary systems

General objective: build an accessible, efficient, independent, transparent and professional justice system accountable to the society, consistent with

the European standards and able to ensure the rule of law, the observance of human rights and contribute to ensuring the public trust in justice.

.

Pillar VII. A RESPONSIBLE, WELL COORDINATED AND WELL MANAGED JUSTICE SECTOR


7.1. Coordination of activities undertaken by all actors in the justice system; strategic planning and development of policies

7.2. Harmonization of the institutional and legal frameworks of the justice system with the European standards

7.3. Coordination of external donor assistance

Draft for public consultation

14

PART 5: SPECIFIC INTERVENTION AREAS

PILLAR 1. The judicial system

Specific objective: Strengthen the independence, accountability, impartiality, efficiency and transparency of judicial system

1.1. Provision of accessibility and independence

The problems of the judiciary of the Republic of Moldova were addressed through this Strategy by focusing on three strategic directions: 1.1. Provide

accessibility and independence of the judicial system; 1.2. Increase transparency and effectiveness of the judiciary; 1.3. Raise professionalism and

responsibility of persons involved in enforcing justice. A list of specific intervention areas was developed for each strategic direction, as specified in

the tables below.

1.1. Provide accessibility and independence of the judicial system

Despite efforts made by the Republic of Moldova in order to enhance accessibility and independence of the judiciary, some issues remained

unresolved, and some require a new conceptual approach.

As regards the accessibility of the judiciary, there are some deficiencies concerning the reduced ability of the courts to communicate with the public;

non-participation of the society in controlling the quality of the judiciary performance, both at the individual and at court level; deficiencies in

providing the necessary number of judges for some courts and extremely high costs to maintain these courts; uncorrelated and unreasonable judicial

expenditures etc.

According to the evaluation report, in terms of independence of the judiciary there are no significant shortcomings as regards securing adequate

financing and self-management. Thus, even if the judiciary budget increases year by year, the Republic of Moldova, having a rate of 0.18% of the

GDP, fails to reach the average of 0.24% recommended by the European Commission for Efficiency of Justice on the allocation of a part of the

national income to the courts. It has also been noticed the insufficient capacity of the judiciary, both at individual and institutional level, to ensure the

planning and evaluation o the actual budgetary needs. At the same time, the evaluation report identified a number of shortcomings in the designation,

appointment, self-regulation and accountability in the judiciary, while inter alia establishing the fact that the system of appointment, qualification and

promotion of judges is inefficient, the mentality of “closed club” of the judiciary as regards the access to employment and hierarchy promotion and

lack of regulatory control of the profession on the part of the Superior Council of Magistracy.


15

To ensure accessibility to and independence of the judiciary systemic and sustainable interventions are necessary aimed at: strengthening the

institutional framework of the courts, creating the conditions necessary to ensure a high degree of openness of the courts to litigants and to society at

large, strict and clear regulation criteria for appointments as judges and allocation of the administrative functions of the courts, strengthening capacities

of self-administration of the judiciary, improving the capacity for strategic planning and evaluation of the real needs of the courts, increasing court

funding.

Specific intervention areas

Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)

Indicators of the implementation level 12

months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

1.1.1. Optimize the map of the

courts displacement with the purpose to strengthen the

institutional capacities of the courts

and the number of judges and to ensure the most efficient use of

available resources.

Ministry of Justice

Superior Council of Magistrates

1. Developed study with recommendations;

2. Developed draft amendments to the regulatory framework;

3. Developed map with the illustration of

deployment of courts and the number of optimised courts;

4. Number of reorganised courts.

1.1.2. Ensure access to justice as

regards the costs

Ministry of Justice


Ministry of Finances

1. Analysis undertaken including formulated

recommendations; 2. Finalised and approved draft amendments to the

regulatory framework.

3. Revised quantum and way of calculating court expenditures.

1.1.3. Reform and strengthen the

structures and systems of interaction with the public

Ministry of Justice


The Courts

1. Operating websites of the courts;

2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the regulatory framework;

3. Awareness campaigns regarding the operation of

the judicial system.

1.1.4. Create an adequate, consequent and sustainable funding

mechanism for the judicial system,

by increasing its funding and unifying the budgetary planning

process of the judicial system.


The Courts

Ministry of Finances

1. Established percentage of the judiciary financing; 2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the

regulatory framework;

3. Unified process of budgetary planning of courts.


16

1.1.5. Increase the management

efficiency and improve the practical and regulatory system of

courts management and strategic

analysis of the budgetary planning

Superior Council of

Magistrates The Courts

National Institute of

Justice Ministry of Finances

Ministry of Justice

1. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the

regulatory framework; 2. Create positions of judicial managers;

3. Review the positions of the judicial managers.

4. Developed and adopted curricula and education plans for the initial and continuous learning.

5. Initial and continuous training courses carried out

for the court managers;

6. Carried out training of the court staff responsible for budget development and execution.

1.1.6 Establish clear and

transparent criteria for the recruitment, appointment and

promotion of judges.

Ministry of Justice


1. Developed study and formulated

recommendations; 2. Exclusion of the initial provision on the

appointment of judges into office for a 5-year period

by amending the Constitution;

3. Reviewed selection criteria of the Supreme Court judges by amending the Constitution;


regulatory framework; 5. New criteria regarding the selection, appointment

and promotion of judges, developed and adopted;

6. New institutions entrusted to carry out selection, appointment and promotion of judges, created.

1.1.7. Unified and transparent

procedure of the appointment of

court chairpersons and deputy chairpersons and clear and

transparent selection criteria for the

candidates to these positions.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


recommendations;

2. Developed and adopted amendments to the Constitution and the regulatory framework;

3. New criteria regarding the selection and

appointment of the court chairperson and deputy chairpersons, developed and adopted;

4. Revised number of the court deputy chairpersons.

1.1.8. Review the procedures of judge relief, detachment and

transfer in order to ensure their

independence and observance of the principle of separation of

powers


Ministry of Justice

1. Developed study and formulated recommendations;


regulatory framework; 3. Reviewed procedures of relief, detachment and

transfer of judges.

1.1.9 Strengthen the self- Superior Council of 1. Developed study and formulated


17

administration capacities of the

judiciary, through a revision of the role and competencies of the


and its subordinated institutions.

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice National Institute of

Justice

recommendations;

2. Law to amend the Constitution, drafted and passed;

3. Developed and adopted draft of amendments to

the regulatory framework; 4. Strengthened status and capacities of the

institutions.

1.1.10. Optimize and strengthen the legal framework of the judicial

system (development of a unique

Law on governance of the judiciary)


Ministry of Justice

1. Developed study with formulated recommendations;

2. Unified legal framework;

3. Law drafted and passed.

1.1.11. Strengthen the security

system in the courts.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Internal

Affairs

1. Developed and adopted draft of amendments to

the regulatory framework;

2. Installed security technologies; 3. Increased security degree in courts.

1.1.13. Strengthen the institutional capacities of courts, including the

review of the opportunity to build a

shared headquarter for all the courts

in Chisinau City, as well as construction/renovation of the

headquarters of courts in the whole

country.

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Finance

Ministry of

Construction and

Regional Development

1. Feasibility survey developed with formulated recommendations;

2. Developed expense estimate;

3. The project of the Palace of Justice and the draft

project construction/renovation of the headquarters of the courts, developed;

4. Built/renovated headquarters of the courts.

Expected results:

Optimized judicial system and an optimised number of judges;

A transparent, balanced and accessible system of calculating the judicial expenditures;

A unified, coordinated budgeting process in the judicial system consistent with the real needs of the judiciary;

Procedure of the selection, appointment and promotion of judges based on objective and transparent criteria, able to secure the independence of the

judicial system;

Strengthened management and strategic analysis of issues referring to budgeting of courts;

Ensured and increased security in the courts;

Strengthened self-administration capacity and independence of the judicial system.


18

1.2. Increased transparency, efficiency and effectiveness

The way the judiciary in Moldova operates and is organized reveals key issues in terms of efficiency and transparency. The procedural law does

not contribute to efficient and prompt examination of cases; the information technologies are not widely applied, although they would contribute not

only to ensure rapidity of case examination, but may also provide more transparency to the process of justice enforcement; the existing mechanism to

ensure uniform judicial practice is not operational; the system of remedies has a more chaotic rather than systemic character and does not contribute to

to take the most of the principle of security of legal reports; the specialization of judges in each court is not ensured, which affects the quality of the

court decisions; the legal processes and the work of the self-regulation institutions are not sufficiently transparent, which fosters the public distrust in

the judiciary as a whole.

The evaluation report shows significant shortcomings in terms of efficiency of the judiciary in the Republic of Moldova, specifically noting,

inter alia: lack of transparency in the way courts operate; inefficiency of the procedural regulations, including the division of powers between courts,

horizontally and vertically, of the system or remedies; the limited use of e-justice tools; lack of random allocation of cases; lack of a quality policy for

the courts, as well as the lack of dedicated staff or of a methodology to develop and implement this policy etc.

In order to build a transparent and efficient judicial system, a series of specific interventions to increase transparency in the institutions and

mechanisms of self-regulation have been provided for: optimize the judicial procedures and ensure their transparency; a wider and more efficient

application of the information technologies, both in the process of justice enforcement as well as in the management of the judiciary; re-examine the

principles of remedy and create mechanisms to ensure a uniform judicial practice; promote specialization of judges; ensure speeding of the case review

in courts.


Deadlines

Responsible institution(s)


mo

nth

s

24

m

on

th

s

36

mon

ths

48

mo

nth

s

60

mo

nth

s

1.2.1. Increase transparency of the

judiciary self-administration mechanisms

and of the institutions of the judiciary self-administration

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice

1. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the regulatory

framework;

2. Adopted regulations of the Superior Council of Magistrates;

3. Updated information regarding the activity of the

authorities of the judiciary bodies has been published.


19

1.2.2. Revision of the procedure rules

with the purpose to optimize and increase transparency and efficiency of the justice

execution process.

Superior Council of

Magistrates Ministry of Justice

1. Survey developed with formulated recommendations;

2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework, developed and adopted;

3. Monitoring report regarding the operation of the judicial

system drawn up from the point of view of transparency and efficiency;

4. Standards concerning the duration of case examination,

developed.

5. Training courses for judges on the file management and rules regarding case review, organized.

6. Electronic mechanism to verify the duration of case review,

developed and implemented.

1.2.3. Implement an e-justice system

for the efficient and functional use of the

judicial information system in order to

exclude the human factor from the administrative process of case

management.

Ministry of Justice,

Superior Council of

Magistrates,

The National Institute of Justice,

Courts

General Prosecutor’s Office

Centre of Special

Telecommunications e-Government Centre

1. Evaluation of the operation of the Integrated Program for

File Management (IPFM) and formulated recommendations;

2. Draft to amend the developed regulatory framework,

developed and adopted; 3. Improved judiciary information system;

4. System of the random distribution of files, improved and

implemented; 5. System governing the creation of the panels of judges and

appointment of the chairpersons of the panels of judges,

created and implemented; 6. The system for the audio/video recording of court

proceedings has been efficiently implemented;

7. Technical endowment necessary for the instalment of the

IPFM has been supplied for all courts along with the equipment necessary for video recording of court hearings.

8. Curriculum for the elaborate training of the court personnel

and judges; 9. Trained judges and court personnel;

10. Complete automation of the file management process;

11. Efficient mechanism to check the compliance with the electronic file management process and punishing errors

1.2.4. Create a mechanism ensuring the

uniformity of the judicial practice and

respect for the principle of security of the judicial reports.

Courts of appeals

Superior Council of

Magistrates


2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework, developed

and adopted; 3. Mechanism ensuring the uniformity of the judicial practice

and respect for the principle of security of the judicial reports,

created and efficiently implemented.


20

4. Evaluation reports of the international institutions.

1.2.5. Increase efficiency of the

Procedural Law through the revision

of the appeal system and distribution

of competences between courts along

the horizontal axis, as well as simplify

and unify the system of remedy

Ministry of Justice Superior Court of Justice

1. Developed study with formulated recommendations; 2. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework, developed

and adopted;

3. The appeal system and its competences has been revised

and implemented; 4. Uniform remedies.

5. Uniform remedy periods and improve the process of

information through court decision. 6. Limit the grounds for extraordinary appeals.

7.Development of an analytical report regarding the

implementation of the legal amendments referring to the enforcement of the appeals.

1.2.6. Review the operation of the

instruction judge institution in view of its

inclusion into the common Law judicial body as specialised judges in this

respective matter.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

The courts National Institute of

Justice

Ministry of Justice

1. Developed study with formulated recommendations;

2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the regulatory

framework; 3. Courses of continuous education have been carried out;

4. The procedure of appointment of instruction judges has

been established; 5. Analysis of implementation of amendments and of the way

the function of instruction judge is being exercised.

Expected results:

A judicial system able to examine cases in a transparent, prompt and qualitative way;

A clear, uniform and logical system of challenging the court judgements;

Establishment of a mechanism enabling the creation of the judicial practice;

Specialization of judges;

A revised and operational integrated file management program;

A revised and improved mechanism of appeal remedies;

Status of the instruction judge modified.

1.3. Increase professionalism and responsibilities of persons involved in making justice


21

A judicial system that is not systemically geared towards promoting the professionalism of those involved in the making of justice and which does not constantly reinforce the principle of public judicial responsibility is likely to be seriously affected by bias, to work in conditions of obscurity and promote protection of corporate interests.

The evaluation report emphasizes the lack of accountability and transparency of the courts as a distinct impediment to the functioning of the

justice sector in the Republic of Moldova and which may be determined by the following factors: insufficient experience of the judicial system in

perceiving itself as a truly independent branch of power; almost abusive application of the inviolability of judges from any liability; the "closed club"

mentality in terms of access to employment and hierarchical promotion, which prevents the flow "of young personnel", as well as the access of more

experienced professionals from other sub-sectors of the judiciary; lack of clear determination of the meaning of ethical or disciplinary violation, their

consequences; inaccessible and obscure procedures for examining alleged disciplinary offenses; the lack of surveys of users of services provided by the

courts, which would allow to evaluate the performance of the judicial system; lack of random allocation of cases; non-stereographing of all hearings or

non-use of the e-justice information tools in case management; lack of effective pressure on the courts on the part of the legal community and society

as a whole; lack of judges’ obligation to report an abusive influence; lack of responsibility for noncompliance with the obligation of reporting.

In order to strengthen the professionalism of the judiciary as a fundamental value, which would ensure taking the most of the principles of

independence both for the judges and for the entire system, its efficiency, as well as the public accountability of judges, systemic and interconnected

interventions for the judicial system overall and for each judge have to be undertaken. These interventions will be aimed at: unifying the requirements

for accession to the profession; improving the training and education process of judges; reviewing the system and methods of continuous training of

judges and auxiliary staff of the judiciary; creating a mechanism for periodic evaluation of judicial performance, based on objective criteria that would

contribute to effective self-cleaning of the system; strengthening the role and functions of judicial inspectors, in order to consolidate self-control

procedures and efficiency of the administrative supervision of the judiciary on the inside; reviewing the system of disciplinary offenses and their

examination procedures; reforming the institution of judicial immunity and excluding privileges that are improper for the functions and status of

judges; increasing the professionalism of the whole system by introducing the position of legal aid, as well as creating a permanent system of

evaluation of the judicial system by introducing the feedback system, based on the collection and systematizing of participants’ views in court

proceedings.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

1.3.1. Reform of the National

Institute of Justice (NIJ) and making its work more efficient.


Justice Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of


regulatory framework; 2. System of the initial and continuous education of

actors of the justice sector, modified and effectively

applied;


22

Prosecutors

Unions of liberal professions of the

justice sector

Ministry of Justice

3. Training programs for trainers of the NIJ,

developed and implemented; 4. TOR for the trainers of the NIJ, developed and

implemented;

5. Monitoring report regarding the implementation of the NIJ reform;

6. Review the budget of the NIJ according to its real

needs.

1.3.2. Review the programmes of the National Institute of Justice to

ensure their compliance with the

real training needs of judges, prosecutors and other actors of the

judiciary sector and avoid doubling

the school curriculum.

National Institute of Justice

Superior Council of

Magistrates Superior Council of

Prosecutors

Ministry of Justice

1. Annual surveys on the training needs of actors of the justice sector, carried out;

2. Developed study with formulated

recommendations; 3. Training programmes, developed and

implemented;

4. Modern training methods, developed.

1.3.3. Ensure the specialization of

judges on specific cases and

examine the opportunity of creating a system of administrative courts.

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Justice

1. Developed study with the formulated

recommendations;

2. Developed criteria for the periodical evaluation of performances;

3. Training courses for the specialization of judges,

on-going.

1.3.4. Unify the system facilitating

the access to the judge profession

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Ministry of Justice

1. Developed draft amendments to the regulatory

framework;

2. Developed and adopted Regulations of the Superior Council of Magistrates;

1.3.5. Create a system of periodical evaluation of the performance of

actors in the justice sector based on

clear, objective and transparent criteria.


The courts

Superior Council of Prosecutors

Unions of liberal

professions of the

justice sector

1. Developed study with the formulated recommendations;

2. Developed criteria for the periodical evaluation

of performances; 3. Draft internal regulations of the actors of justice

sector, developed and implemented;

4. Evaluation of all judges according to the new

performance criteria; 5. Report analysing the implementation of the

evaluation criteria.


23

1.3.6. Create mechanisms to

measure the performance of the

judiciary through surveys among the litigants (feed-back)

Superior Council of

Magistrates

1. Developed methodology;

2. Developed study to evaluate the performance;

3. Results of the surveys, synthetized and published.

1.3.7. Strengthen the role of judicial

inspection and clarify its powers.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


recommendations;


3. Amended Regulations of the Superior Council of

Magistrates. 4. Powers of the respective institution, reviewed.

1.3.8. Review the range of

disciplinary deviations and of the

disciplinary procedure pursuing their adjustment to the realities of

the system and to the European

standards.

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice


recommendations;


3. The range of disciplinary deviations has been

revised and adjusted; 4. The new mechanism referring to the examination

of disciplinary accountability has been

implemented.

1.3.9. Reform of the judge immunity institution to ensre only

the operational imunity


Ministry of Justice

1. Developed study with the formulated recommendations;


regulatory framework; 3. Immunity for contraventions has been excluded.

1.3.10. Strengthen the judicial

system via the introduction of the

judge assistant position and change the registrar status and duties

Superior Council of

Magistrates

The courts Ministry of Justice


Justice


recommendations;


3. The position of the judge assistant has been

introduced; 4. Revised tasks of the court registrar;

5. Developed Curriculum for the initial and

continuous education;


24

6. Initial and continuous training courses for court

assistants, carried out.

Expected results:

Functional National Institute of Justice, able to provide the initial and continuous professional education of judges;

Ensured specialization of judges;

An effective system of admission to the judge position;

An efficient system for the disciplinary accountability of judges;

Strengthened role of the judiciary inspection;

A policy for the performance and quality evaluation of courts based on transparency and clear performance indicators that are measurable for

judges and courts; the policy includes a system for the performance evaluation of courts carried out by “final users”.


25

PILLAR 2. Criminal justice

Specific objective: streamline the process of interlocutory investigations to ensure compliance with human rights, security of every

person and diminish the criminality level

Addressing criminal justice in the Republic of Moldova through this Strategy was focused on five strategic directions: 2.1. Review the concept

and the phase of interlocutory procedure phase; 2.2. Enhance professionalism and independence of the prosecution bodies; 2.3. Strengthen individual

and institutional capacity to investigate crimes; 2.4. Modernize the system of collecting statistical data and evaluation of professional performance at

the individual and institutional level; 2.5. Humanization of the criminal policy and strengthening of the mechanism for ensuring the rights of victims. A

list of specific intervention areas for each strategic direction was developed, as specified in the tables below.

One of the problems related to the interlocutory stage is the lack of a concept and a clear procedure, given that the powers of the prosecution

bodies are not clearly defined, while the criminal procedure law is contradictory in some respects. There is a de facto distinction between the

hierarchical subordination of the prosecution to their administrative superiors in terms of professional development and disciplinary matters, on the one

hand, and operational subordination of the prosecution to the same persons in the context of specific criminal cases, on the other. Similarly, there are

cases of doubling of the powers of several criminal prosecution bodies, which leads to a certain chaos in the system.

For these reasons it is necessary to take intervention actions aimed at: improving the criminal procedure law to exclude duplication of powers,

strengthening the status and powers of the prosecution, especially the status of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and revision of the status of the Centre

for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption.

2.1. Review the concept and procedure of the interlocutory phase


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

2.1.1. Optimize the institutional,

organizational and operational

framework consolidation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Internal

Affairs

1. Implemented Concept of the reform of the

Ministry of Internal Affairs;

2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the regulatory framework.

2.1.2. Review the statute of the

Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption

Ministry of Justice

Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and

Corruption

1. Developed and adopted Concept for revision of

the statute of the Centre for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption;




26

2.1.3. Clarify the role and powers

of the prosecution bodies and other criminal investigation bodies, who

carry out operative investigation

activities

Ministry of Justice


Bar Association

1. Developed Concept for the pre-judiciary phase;

2. Developed draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure and to other legal acts;


institutional framework and a developed Plan of implementation.

2.1.4. Optimize the operative

investigation and criminal

prosecution

Ministry of Justice

General Prosecutor’s

Office


recommendations;


3. Clarified ratio between activities to be carried out

by operative investigation bodies and the ones carried out by criminal investigation;

4. Trainings carried out for the personnel of relevant

authorities.

2.1.5. Improve the Criminal Procedure Law to exclude the

existent contradictions between the

Law and the standards for the protection of human rights and

fundamental freedoms.

Ministry of Justice General Prosecutor’s

Office

Ministry of Internal Affairs

Centre for Combating

Economic Crimes and

Corruption Customs Service

1. A Survey evaluating the performance of the criminal justice system from the point of view of the

ECHR jurisprudence has been carried out and

recommendations have been formulated; 2. Proposals of amendments to the legal and

institutional frameworks have been developed.

Expected results:

An efficient and effective criminal investigation procedure complying with international standards;

Legislation on criminal procedure adjusted to European standards.

2.2. Strengthening professionalism and independence of the prosecutor’s office

Currently there is a lack of functional independence of prosecutors from superiors to consider cases, a fact conditioned by the so-called statutory

principle of "unconditional subordination" and by a vertical style of system management. Subordinate prosecutors enjoy a rather illusory right to

require written instructions in order to potentially contest any of them. At the same time, according to the results of a comparative analysis to other


27

European countries, the Republic of Moldova has a relatively large number of prosecutors per capita, this being the reason to conduct a study in order

to clarify the personal needs of the prosecution bodies in order to optimize the number of prosecutors. Another shortcoming is the insufficient capacity

of prosecutors to exercise their office powers due to lack of independence, skills, expertise and appropriate training. An important role in the

prosecution system is held by the Superior Council of Prosecutors, a body the basic function of which is to ensure effective management of the

prosecution institution. The current rules are sometimes vague and sometimes even as regards the regulation of the status of the Superior Council of

Prosecutors.

Taking into account the things mentioned above it is obvious that there is need for specific interventions aimed at: amending legislation for the

purpose of giving real internal independence for prosecutors by excluding possibilities of illegal instruction, including verbal ones, given by

prosecutors they subordinate to; reviewing the procedure by which the prosecutors authorize the actions of subordinated prosecutors; providing

specialization prosecutors as regards specific cases for and examining the opportunity of operation for specialized prosecutor's offices; establishing

some clear and transparent criteria and procedure for the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors; reviewing the procedure of appointing

the Attorney General; review the rules on prosecutors’ liability and exclusion of their general immunity; strengthening the capacity of the Superior

Council of Prosecutors and changing legislation in this regard.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

2.2.1. Review the procedure for the

appointment of the Attorney General and his deputies and

establish clear and transparent

criteria for the selection of candidates to these functions

Ministry of Justice


1. Adopted draft amendment to the Constitution;

2. Adopted draft amendments to the regulatory framework,

3. Developed and adopted criteria for the selection

of candidates to General Prosecutor’s position and to deputies of the General Prosecutor.

2.2.2. Establish clear and

transparent criteria and procedure

for the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors.

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


recommendations;


3. Developed and approved new criteria for the

selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors;

4. New institutions for the selection, appointment

and promotion of prosecutors have been created.

2.2.3. Capacity building for the

Superior Council of Prosecutors in




28

view of ensuring an efficient

administration of the prosecutor’s office.

2. Adequate budget, personnel and regulatory

framework allocated to the Superior Council of Prosecutors.

3. Training courses for the members and personnel

of Superior Council of Prosecutors, held.

2.2.4. Define clearly competences

of the prosecution bodies

Ministry of Justice

Attorney General’s

Office


recommendations.


regulatory framework. 3. Developed system of prosecutors’ specialization.

4. Training courses for the specialization of

prosecutors, held. 5. Modified structure of the prosecution bodies.

2.2.5. Ensure the specialization of

prosecutors on specific cases and

examine the opportunity of operation in case of specialized

prosecutor’s offices.


Office


recommendations;


2.2.6. Examine staff requirements of the prosecution bodies and

develop proposals for the

optimization of the number of

prosecutors.



Office


2. Developed draft amendments to the regulatory

framework.

2.2.7. Re-examine the mechanism

of funding the prosecution bodies

Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Office


recommendations;

2. Reviewed mechanism of funding the prosecutor

institutions.

2.2.8. Demilitarize the prosecutor’s

office institution, including the examination of of the opportunity to

provide the prosecutors with the

magistrate status.

Superior Council of

Prosecutors Attorney General’s

Office

1. 1. Developed study and formulated

recommendations; 2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the

regulatory framework;

3. Demilitarized prosecutor institution.

2.2.9. Ensure the creation of a mechanism that would help exclude

the possibility for the hierarchically

superior prosecutors to give illegal instructions to the subordinated

prosecutors; ensure the internal

Ministry of Justice Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Office





29

independence of all prosecutors

2.2.10. Re-examine the

accountability rules for prosecutors

and exclude their general immunity

Ministry of Justice


Office Superior Council of

Prosecutors


recommendations;

2. Developed and adopted draft amendments to the regulatory framework.

Expected results:

Strengthened role, statute and capacities of the self administration bodies of the prosecutor’s office;

Optimised human resources of the prosecutor’s office;

An independent system of the prosecution bodies exercising their competencies;

Revised procedure for the appointment of the General Prosecutor;

Revised mechanism of funding the prosecution bodies;

Established criteria and procedure for the selection, appointment and promotion of prosecutors;

Operational system of prosecutors’ accountability.

2.3. Professional capacity building at individual and institutional levels in issues dealing with crime investigations

The insufficient capacity of the prosecution bodies, including lack of skills and appropriate training, is one of the reasons for the ineffective

investigation and prosecution. The evaluation report states that the law enforcement and prosecution bodies, as well as the criminal justice system in

Moldova overall, face difficulties in the application of the special investigative techniques (operative), which are used in combating organized, latent

or sophisticated forms of offenses, including corruption offenses. This is due to the out-dated legal framework, especially Law No. 45-XIII of April 12

1994 on Operative Investigations, as well as the non-transparent practice of implementing this law. As a result, the special investigative activities

undermines the criminal justice system in the Republic of Moldova, reducing its efficiency and exhibiting inability to comply with relevant human

rights standards such as the requirement for clarity and predictability of the regulatory framework (the case Iordachi and Others vs. Moldova examined

at the ECHR).

Specific interventions have to be carried out to improve the situation in this area: implementation of some modern methods of investigation and

criminal prosecution; amend the legislation and appropriate training of persons involved in these processes; specialize the actors of the interlocutory

phase and, if necessary, conducting criminal investigations within some interdepartmental groups; strengthen the capacity of the judicial expertise

centers.


30


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

2.3.1. Implement some modern

methods of criminal

investigation and prosecution (information technologies, modern

expertise etc.)


Office



Economic Crimes and Corruption

Customs Service

Information and Security Service

1. Implemented modern methods of criminal

investigation and prosecution;

2. Trainings organized and held for the personnel of the interested institutions.

2.3.2. Enhance professional

capacities of persons involved in

activities of criminal investigation and prosecution.


Justice


Information and

Security Service Centre for Combating

Economic Crimes and

Corruption

Customs Service

1. Training curricula developed and implemented;

2. Trainings carried out for persons involved in

criminal investigation and prosecution activities.

2.3.3. Enhance capacities and

reconsider the place and role of the

judicial expertise centers


Office



Economic Crimes and


Information and

Security Service

1 Developed study and formulated

recommendations.

2. Developed and adopted draft amendment to the regulatory framework.

3. Reformed judicial expertise centres.

2.3.4. Criminal prosecution within an

inter-departmental team (“task-force

group”) if necessary; streamline the

criminal prosecution.


Office


Affairs Centre for Combating

1. Amendments carried out to the regulatory

framework;

2. Interdepartmental norms developed and

implemented.


31

Economic Crimes and


2.3.5. Improve the professional skills

of the actors of the interlocutory phase, by providing specialization for

the latter.


Office Ministry of Internal

Affairs



Customs Service


recommendations; 2. Developed system for the specialisation of the

pre-judicial phase actors;

3. Courses for the specialisation of the pre-judicial

phase actors have been carried out.

Expected results:

Strengthened professionalism of persons involved in activities of criminal investigation and prosecution;

Consolidated capacity of the judicial expertise centres;

Efficient and modern criminal prosecution procedure.


32

2.4. Modernize the statistical data collection system and the professional performance evaluation system at the individual and professional levels

Current systems of statistical data collection and professional performance evaluation are out-dated and inefficient. Nowadays, every

prosecution body collects its own statistics; this is the reason why the statistical results on the same indicator may not be the same in case of all

prosecution bodies. One of the main problems related to data collection is the lack of analysis. Another major problem with the criminal justice system

is the lack of clear and effective performance indicators, which would express the needs of the system. Current performance indicators related to the

objectives of criminal investigation and law enforcement are imperfect, undue importance being offered to the indicators on the number of detected

and investigated offenses.

The report prepared by the Soros -Moldova Foundation on "Criminal justice performance in terms of human rights. Assessment of the

transformation process of the criminal justice system in the Republic of Moldova” reads: “The overall impression from interviews is that the

investigators continue to perceive as the main indicator of their work the number of solved offenses that they must report monthly to their supervisors.

This is an out-dated term that refers to the materials of cases submitted to the prosecutor regardless of the examination result by the prosecutor of the

case materials. Almost all investigators have said that this performance measure was ineffective, some even considering it as counterproductive”. The

same report reads: “The prosecution does not seem to have comparable performance indicators, but nevertheless it bears the strain to finalize cases

quickly, in order to meet the speed requirement of the prosecution. Therefore, at the end of each month, they have to explain why some cases take

longer periods of follow-up”. For this reason, it is imperative to review the way of setting and evaluating the performance indicators of the bodies

involved in the criminal justice.

In the context of the problems mentioned above, some specific actions must be undertaken oriented towards: standardising the procedures for

collecting and analysing statistical data related to the criminal justice; modernizing the statistical data collection; implementing a functional electronic

system of keeping record of offenses; training of actors of the interlocutory phase in order to use electronic systems.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

2.4.1. Ensure electronic filling and

examine the opportunity of electronic dissemination of

complaints concerning offences



Affairs



Customs Service

1. Developed study with formulated

recommendations. 2. Developed and adopted draft amendment to the


3. Developed and implemented system for

electronic filling and recording of offences.

2.4.2. Revised and uniform methods in criminal justice for the

statistical data collection and

Centre for Special Telecommunications



2. Modified and uniform process of statistical data


33

procession. Office




Customs Service

Information and Security

Service National Bureau of

Statistics

collection and procession in the criminal justice.

2.4.3. Modification of performance indicators for bodies involved in

criminal justice execution and their

staff to ensure the observance of

human rights.



Affairs


Corruption

Customs Service

1. New system of performance indicators developed and tested at the institutional and

individual levels;

2. Diversified system for performance assessment

developed, tested and applied at the institutional and individual levels, also envisaging assessment

of the public opinion on a permanent basis.

Expected results:

An equidistant and objective system for collection and procession of statistical data referring to the criminal justice;

Performance indicators and an assessment system for the individual and institutional levels stimulating an efficient activity of bodies / staff of

the criminal justice, ensuring the latter’s observance of human rights.

2.5. Human friendly criminal policy and strengthening of the mechanism of ensuring the rights of victims

The humanization of the criminal policy, strengthening of the mechanism for ensuring the rights of victims and effective juvenile justice are on-

going processes, not yet consolidated and finalized.

The humanization of criminal policy is a priority for the Government, with steps undertaking in this direction by amending the Criminal Code in

2009, but this process should be continued, because the criminal law of the Republic of Moldova establishes harsh penalties compared to the criminal

law of other European countries, while the prison overcrowding is still an issue even today.

For these reasons it is necessary to undertake some actions of systemic and sustainable intervention, which will be focused on: the liberalization

of criminal policy; broad application of simplified procedures; improving the protection mechanism for the offence victims.


34


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

2.5.1. Liberalization of criminal

policies through use of penalties

and prevention and non-custodial measures for certain categories of

persons and certain offences

Ministry of Justice


Office

1. Developed study regarding the applied criminal

sanctions;

2. The Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and other normative acts amended in conformity to

recommendations, while the amendments are

adopted.

2.5.2. Create conditions for a larger

application of simplified procedures

Ministry of Justice


Office

1. Study on the application of simplified

procedures;

2. Draft amendment to the regulatory framework, developed and adopted;

3. Mechanisms ensuring the application of

simplified procedures, implemented. 4. Methods of alternative case solving, applied.

2.5.3. Strengthen the mechanism of

ensuring the right of the offence

victims.


Office


Bar Association

Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and

Family

Ministry of Justice


recommendations.

2. Draft amendment to the regulatory framework, developed and adopted;

3. Mechanisms ensuring the victims’ rights,

implemented.

Expected results:

Revised criminal procedures;

Simplified procedures and non-custodial sanctions in all relevant cases;

Ensured rights of the offence victims.

PILLAR 3. Access to justice and enforcement of court decisions


35

Specific objective: Improve the institutional framework and processes that ensure effective access to justice: effective legal aid, case examination

and enforcement of court decisions in reasonable time, upgrade the status of some professions related to the justice system.

3.1. Strengthen the system of State Guaranteed Legal Assistance (SGLA)

Providing state-guaranteed legal assistance to those who lack financial resources to contract a lawyer is one of the main means of ensuring

access to justice. To facilitate real access to justice for those who cannot hire a lawyer, the state-guaranteed legal aid must be accessible and

qualitative. The Republic of Moldova does not yet offer litigants a state guaranteed legal assistance system, the range of the services offered being

limited, while the quality is sometimes below expectations. This problem will become even more acute as of 2012, when only lawyers will be able to

go to court and this might make the cost of their services grow significantly. Another problem of the state-guaranteed legal assistance system is the low

administrative capacity of the National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Assistance. The Council does not have a permanent administrative staff, the

only person who provides the technical-material activity is a specialist of the Ministry of Justice, responsible as well for duties within the ministry.

This support is insufficient to ensure normal and effective operation of the National Council for State Guaranteed Legal Assistance.

In order to strengthen the state guaranteed legal assistance system, the Strategy focuses on: qualitative implementation of the legal provisions in

force on State Guaranteed Legal Assistance and diversifying different kinds of the state guaranteed legal assistance; the allocation of adequate financial

resources corresponding to the real needs of the state guaranteed legal assistance system; maintaining the institution of public defenders and increase

their number; development and implementation of various mechanisms for promotion of the legal culture.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

3.1.1. Strengthen the capacity for

organization and management of

the SGLA system

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance

National Council for

State Guaranteed Legal Assistance

Field offices of

NCSGLA

1. Draft amendment to the regulatory framework,

developed and adopted;

2. Administrative office of the National Council for

State Guaranteed Legal Assistance, established; 3. Personnel of the field offices proportional to

system needs.

3.1.3. Improve the quality of SGLA

services (criminal and non-criminal

cases)


State Guaranteed Legal

Assistance

Field offices of NCSGLA

Bar Association

1. Mechanism for improving the quality of SGLA

services, developed and implemented.

2. Survey on the financial needs and the way to

provide SGLA services, carried out and formulated recommendations.

3. Mixed SGLA system through public lawyers and

lawyers providing SGLA on request, implemented.


36

4. Financial means allocated for SGLA according to

the real needs of the system. 5. Training public lawyers and other lawyers who

provide SGLA on request, ensured.

3.1.5. Promote legal culture and access to the legal information;

reduce legal nihilism

National Council for State Guaranteed Legal

Assistance

Ministry of Justice

external donors

1. Legal education campaigns, including the involvement of the NGOs in some public-private

partnerships, carried out.

2. Primary legal assistance system through an

operational network of para-jurists at the rural community level, which includes the social workers

too, created and operational.

3. Mechanisms of primary legal assistance for some categories of vulnerable persons in urban areas,

tested.

Expected results:

The work of the National Council of State Guaranteed Legal Assistance improved;

SGLA services accessible, diversified and qualitative;

Increased level of legal culture;

Operational mechanisms of primary legal assistance.

3.2. Building institutional capacity and professional development of representatives of justice related professions (lawyers, notaries,

mediators, bailiffs, legal experts, administrators of insolvency proceedings, translators/interpreters)

The Strategy assumes that the judiciary cannot effectively operate without the work of a number of professionals who would contribute to

performing justice. The Strategy includes the following categories of professionals whose jobs are related to the justice system: lawyers, notaries,

mediators, bailiffs, legal expert, managers of insolvency proceedings and translators/ interpreters. The main problems related to the work of these

professions in the Republic of Moldova are: (1) quality of provided services and (2) their organization as a profession or a professional group. Both

issues are interrelated. The efficient organization of these professions is an essential prerequisite for ensuring the quality of the services, because only

in an organized group it is possible to apply the quality assurance mechanisms (stimulatory or disciplinary measures, organizing training courses,

systems to ensure civil liability and other relevant measures). On the other hand, the qualitative services require an appropriate level of remuneration.

In particular, if these services are paid by the state, the costs must be real and well reasoned. At present, not all listed occupations have organizational

capacities to ensure the quality of services provided by their representatives to negotiate with the state the rates based on well-reasoned arguments.


37

This Strategy provides strengthening the organizational capacity of the professions related to the justice system so that they engage proactively in

developing some operational mechanisms to ensure the quality of provided services.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

3.2.1. Encourage capacity building

of representatives of the justice

related professions at the level of

professional unions, with special emphasis on “leadership”

Ministry of Justice

Self-administration

bodies of the justice

system related professions

1. Study on the functioning of each profession

developed, recommendations formulated;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework,

developed and approved; 3. Including representatives of justice related

professions in processes related to justice reform.

3.2.2. Develop quality standards for services provided by

representatives of justice related

professions

Ministry of Justice Self-administration


system related

professions

1. Quality standards developed; 2. Quality assurance mechanisms developed and

implemented.

3.2.3. Initiate integrated, clear and

precise mechanisms for criteria and

methods of calculation of payments for services

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance

Self-administration bodies of the justice

system related

professions

1. Study on the current mechanisms developed,

recommendations formulated;

2. Recommendations and/or regulations for determining payments for services, developed and

adopted.

3.2.4. Establish clear and

transparent criteria for accession to

professional bodies, based on

merits,

Ministry of Justice

Self-administration


system related professions

1. Study on access to each profession developed,

recommendations formulated;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework

developed and approved.

3.2.5. Provide initial and

continuing training to

representatives of justice related

professions, including the shared continuous training, extending the


Justice

Self-administration


1. Initial and continuous training programme developed and implemented (for each profession);

2. Initial and continuous training courses

conducted.


38

role of the NIJ in this process system related

professions

3.2.6. Promote and implement

ethical standards for justice system

related professions

Ministry of Justice

Self-administration

bodies of the justice system related

professions

Standards/codes of ethics developed, adopted and

implemented for each profession.

3.2.7. Strengthen the professional

liability insurance system

Ministry of Justice


system related

professions (including procurement

of services)

1. Comparative study on liability insurance models

– developed, recommendations formulated; 2. Professional liability insurance system

implemented;

3. Monitoring mechanism for the professional liability insurance system established.

3.2.8. Strengthen the disciplinary

mechanisms

Ministry of Justice


system related

professions

1. Study developed and recommendations

formulated; 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework

developed;

3. Disciplinary mechanism – in place for each justice system related profession.

3.2.9. Establish a uniform tax

system for social and medical

insurance for the justice system related professions

Ministry of Justice

Self-administration

bodies of the justice system related

professions


formulated;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework, developed and adopted;

3. Methodological recommendations on the tax

regime, social and medical insurance for the

representatives of the justice system related professions, developed.

Expected results:

Justice system related professions - (lawyers, notaries, mediators, bailiffs, legal experts, administrators of insolvency proceedings,

translators/interpreters) - independent, able self-regulate and provide quality services;

Improved systems of ensuring criminal and disciplinary liability.

3.3. Effective enforcement of court decisions judgments


39

Non-enforcement of court decisions is a systemic problem in the Republic of Moldova, found in a series of decisions of the European Court of

Human Rights. In 2010, the Enforcement Code has been amended and Law 113 of 17 June 2010 on Bailiffs was passed. As a result, the enforcement of

court decisions has been reshaped and a system of private bailiffs was created. The main purpose of these amendments is to ensure effective

enforcement of judgments. The period of the implementation of changes is still insufficient to allow an assessment of these changes and to identify

impediments in achieving the desired outcome.

The Strategy provides for: the need to strengthen institutionally the system of private bailiffs; ensure the necessary condit ions for the operation

of bailiffs; evaluating current regulatory framework impact on the enforcement of court decisions and the mechanism for implementing these

decisions, including decisions of the ECHR; developing draft laws and policies substantiated with empirical data for strengthening the newly created

system.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

3.3.1. Assess the impact of the

current regulatory framework on the enforcement of court decisions and

the mechanism for implementing

these decisions, including ECHR decisions.

Ministry of Justice

National Union of Bailiffs

1. Impact assessment carried out;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted.

3.3.2. Institutional capacity building

of the new private system for

enforcement of court decisions

Ministry of Justice

National Union of

Bailiffs


developed;

2. Bailiffs’ self-administration bodies created and strengthened.

3.3.3. Improve information

management and communication

system by providing access to

databases

Ministry of Justice

National Union of

Bailiffs Database managing

authorities

1. Legal framework to ensure access to databases,


2. Access to databases, provided.

3.3.4. Ensure compliance with

reasonable deadlines in the

enforcement of court decisions

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Finance

National Union of

Bailiffs

The mechanism for ensuring compliance with reasonable deadlines in the enforcement of court

decisions, improved.

3.3.5. Improve the mechanism for

recognition and enforcement of

foreign court decisions.

Ministry of Justice National Union of

Bailiffs

1. Study developed and recommendations formulated;

2. Mechanism for recognition and enforcement of

foreign court decisions, improved.


40

Expected results:

The system of enforcement of court decisions in civil cases operates efficiently;

Enforcement of judgments is improved.

PILLAR 4. Strengthening the integrity of justice sector actors by promoting anti-corruption measures and standards of professional ethics

Specific objective: promote and implement the principle of zero tolerance for the corruption events in the justice system

The actions meant to help strengthen the integrity of the justice sector actors by promoting anti-corruption measures and standards of professional

ethics will be focused on the following strategic directions: 4.1. Efficient fight against corruption in the justice sector, 4.2. Strengthen implementation

of ethical standards and anti-corruption conduct in all justice sector institutions; 4.3. Developing a culture of intolerance towards corruption through

self-administration bodies in the justice sector.

4.1. Efficient fight against corruption in the justice system

The evaluation report found possible causes of this situation in the justice sector, such as: insufficient use of the system of filing statements on

income and property; failure to implement criminal and non-criminal methods of fighting corruption, of patrimonial methods to combat corruption;

cooperation deficiencies between agencies and in applying “special (operational) investigation techniques” against allegedly corrupt officials,

especially from representatives of the judiciary; the low level pay of broad categories of civil servants compared to the private sector etc. To ensure effective prevention and fight against corruption in the justice sector precise and harsh interventions are necessary aimed at: increasing the

wages of relevant actors in the justice sector; trigger real and effective implementation of the mechanisms for verifying the statements on income and property and declarations of personal interests of the justice sector actors, of the control mechanisms on compliance with the legal regime of incompatibilities and conflicts of interest; introducing new mechanisms and types of liability for persons involved in corruption acts; providing of new measures to prevent any spread of corruption in the judiciary; excluding the human factor as much as possible from the administrative management processes of the justice sector and application of modern technologies; introducing some clear regulations on the compulsory statement concerning illegal influences exerted on representatives of the justice sector; strengthening institutions responsible for ensuring the internal integrity and security.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)

Indicators of the implementation status 12

months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months


41

4.1.1. Increase substantially the

salaries of the justice sector actors and simplify criteria for calculating

salaries

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance Ministry of Labour,

Social Protection and

Family

1. Draft amendment to the new legal framework on

the statement on incomes, property and personal interests, developed and adopted;

2. Substantial salary increase of the justice sector

actors.

4.1.2. Strengthen the mechanism of

verification of income and property

statements, personal interest statements, control over the

compliance with the legal

provisions on the conflict of interests and the regime of

incompatibilities imposed on

persons in a public office, judges,

prosecutors, civil servants and persons in leadership positions.

Ministry of Justice

Main Ethics Commission

Ministry of Finance Centre for Combating

Economic Crimes and

Corruption Superior Council of

Magistrates

Superior Council of

Prosecutors

1. Draft amendment to the legal framework on the

statement on incomes, property and personal

interests, developed and adopted; 2. Capacity building for the authorities responsible

for verifying the statements on income and

properties, statements on personal interests and regime of incompatibilities;

3. Increase public trust in the authorities

responsible for verifying the statements on income

and properties, statements on personal interests and regime of incompatibilities

4.1.3. Review the legal framework

to discourage corruption in the justice sector and punish more

severely offences related to

corruption; increase effectiveness

of the judicial coercion

Ministry of Justice


Corruption


Office, Supreme Court of Justice


Affairs

1. Draft amendment to the legal framework for a

more punishing more severely the corruption related offences, developed and adopted;

homogenization of the legal practice;

2. Survey showing decreased willingness of the

public to commit acts of corruption; 3. Number of people convicted for corruption

related offences.

4.1.4. Substantially increase the

salaries of justice sector actors and

simplification of criteria for

calculating salaries (work experience, base salary,

administrative position and level of

court)

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Labour,

Social Protection and Family

1. Drafting the new legal framework on

remuneration of justice sector actors;

2. Substantially increase the salaries of justice

sector actors.

4.1.5. Clear regulation of the

behaviour of judges, prosecutors,

criminal investigators, lawyers and

bailiffs in relation to other people in order to fight corruption; create

a mechanism to ensure

Superior Council of

Magistrates


Office Centre for Combating

Economic Crimes and

1. Draft regulatory framework, developed and

adopted.

2. Establish an operational mechanism to report on

corruption within the institution. 1. Developed study with formulated

recommendations.


42

incorruptible behaviour Corruption


“Stefan cel Mare” Police

Academy Bar Association Ministry

of Justice


adopted. 3. Prevention instruments, created and effectively

implemented.

4.1.6. Capacity building for units

responsible for ensuring internal security

Superior Council of

Magistrates General Prosecutor’s

Office


Corruption


Affairs Ministry of Justice


adopted. 2. Training the staff of the units responsible for

ensuring internal security;

3. Informing the society about the units responsible for internal security.

Expected results:

A justice sector that is intolerant of and discourages corruption;

An effective mechanism to prevent and combat corruption in the justice sector;

Predisposition of the public to commit acts of corruption is lower.

4.2. Strengthen the mechanisms of implementation of ethical standards and anti-corruption conduct in all institutions of the justice sector

Existence of some ethical and conduct standards is a compulsory prerequisite for the corruption prevention process. Most of the justice sector

actors have developed ethical standards for their professions. Although some sets of ethical standards are in force for many years, their acceptance and

practical application does not seem to be widely spread, event those concerned by them do not know them and do not respect them. Significant

deficiencies are also noticed concerning the monitoring on the part of the self-management as regards the way the anti-corruption ethical and conduct

requirements are respected by the justice sector representatives; this is also true for the justice sector actors as regards the accountability for violations

of ethical standards; also true as regards the insufficient involvement of the civil society in monitoring the ethical behaviour of the justice sector actors

etc.

The evaluation report noted the lack of clarity and predictability of the requirements under the codes of professional conduct and ethics of the

justice sector actors as one of the causes of the spread of corruption in this sector.


43

To strengthen and extend the application of anti-corruption ethical and conduct standards in the justice sector a number of specific interventions

are necessary focusing on: promotion and awareness of the rules of professional ethics on the part of the justice sector actors; development and

harmonization of ethical standards for all actors in the justice sector; capacity building for bodies responsible for compliance with professional ethics

and the self-enforcement bodies of the professions; wider involvement of the society in the process of monitoring the compliance with ethical norms.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

4.2.1. Standardize and refine ethical standards for all actors in

the justice sector

Ministry of Justice Centre for Combating

Economic Crimes and


Magistrates



Affairs

State Chancellery Unions of professions

related to the justice

sector

Improving and standardizing the provisions of codes of ethics

4.2.2. Regular training of justice sector actors in the field of

professional ethics


“Stefan cel Mare”

Police Academy

1. Training courses organized and conducted; 2. Justice sector actors trained in professional ethics.

4.2.3. Improve the mechanisms for

respecting the professional ethics

and capacity building of bodies

responsible for observing professional ethics

Ministry of Justice


Economic Crimes and


Magistrates



Affairs



2. Number and results of disciplinary proceedings.


44

4.2.4. Public awareness campaigns

on the professional ethics of justice sector actors

Ministry of Justice


Corruption


Superior Council of

Prosecutors


Number of public awareness campaigns conducted

4.2.5. Involve the society in

monitoring the compliance with the professional ethics of justice sector

actors



Superior Council of

Magistrates


Supreme Court of

Justice Ministry of Internal

Affairs

1. Mechanisms of involving civil society members

society in monitoring the compliance with the professional ethics of justice sector actors;


developed and adopted.

Expected results:

A justice sector with clear and uniform regulations on ethical standards;

Effective mechanisms for enforcing professional ethics;

A well informed society about the professional ethics of justice sector actors;

High professionalism of employees of the bodies responsible for compliance with professional ethics;

Civil society involved in the process of monitoring compliance with professional ethics.

4.3. Develop a culture of intolerance to corruption by self-management institutions from the justice sector

The spirit of intolerance towards all manifestations of corruption is to be inoculated not only to the whole, but especially to bodies of the justice sector.

As long as the manifestations of corruption are accepted as an element of normality even by the actors in the justice sector the development of this

phenomenon reaches alarming connotations and erodes the very essence of the rule of law. The high degree of corruption spread within the justice

sector is noticed in many evaluation reports drawn by the national and international institutions. The fact that justice in the Republic of Moldova is

seriously affected by corruption was also recognized by a Parliament declaration on the state of justice in the Republic of Moldova and the actions

needed to improve the situation of the judiciary (Parliament Resolution No. 53-XVIII of October 30, 2009).


45

Among the main causes of the spread of corruption in the justice sector the assessment report cited the following: insufficient and ineffective

exercise of the role of regulation and control by the Superior Council of Magistrates; the total lack of capacity of the investigation and judicial bodies

in the anti-corruption sector the results of which are daunting; lack of skills, competencies, training and leadership qualities.

In order to improve the alarming state of affairs in this area it is necessary to carry out some specific interventions on the following dimensions:

dissemination of best practices regarding strengthening the integrity of the justice sector actors; develop training components to deter the justice sector

actors to engage in corruption acts; introduce at the legal and practical levels some non-traditional measures to promote corruption intolerance; ensure

a greater degree of openness of the justice sector to society, including dissemination of information regarding the causes of corruption and people

punished for involvement in corruption acts.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

4.3.1. Conduct periodic trainingcourses for the justice

sector actors on combating

corruption


Corruption


“Stefan cel Mare”

Police Academy

1. Curriculum developed; 2. Trainings conducted and number of trained

actors.

4.3.2. Develop and implement measures to encourage the justice

sector actors to promote honest

behavior and develop a culture of intolerance to corruption


Superior Council of

Prosecutors Ministry of Internal

Affairs





developed and adopted. 3. Encouragement measures, developed and applied.

4.3.3. Strengthen the system of the

integrity warnings (inside and outside the sector)

Superior Council of

Magistrates Supreme Court of

Justice

Superior Council of

Prosecutors General Prosecutor’s


formulated; 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework


3. The mechanism of the warning regime operation,

created and implemented.


46

Office


Corruption


4.3.4. Publish and disseminate court

decisions on sentencing justice

sector actors for corruption acts

Superior Council of

Magistrates

Ministry of Justice



2. Site created and operational; 3. Court decisions on sentencing justice sector

actors for corruption, published and disseminated.

Expected results:

High level of intolerance to corruption in the justice sector;

Warning regime established and operational;

Public access to court decisions on sentencing justice sector actors for corruption is ensured.


47

PILLAR 5. Contribution of justice to the economic growth

Specific objective: Implement some measures through which the justice sector would contribute to the creation of an environment favourable

for the sustainable development of the economy

The economic growth is conditioned by the potential existing resources and the way they are used. In this sense it would not be appropriate to

refer only to direct factors determining the economic growth, but also to the indirect ones, which have an equal influence on the economic growth, one

of them being the efficiency of the justice system. To achieve this objective several strategic directions through which the expected results may be

reached have been established: 5.1. Strengthen the system of alternative dispute resolution; 5.2. Improve the insolvency proceedings; 5.3. Modernize

the system of record keeping and access to the information about businesses.

5.1. Strengthen the alternative dispute resolution

Businesses in particular and individuals in general have limited access to the alternative dispute resolution arrangements that would allow them

to avoid time consuming and costs in some trials. In the case of the Republic of Moldova all economic disputes are resolved by two specialized courts

(the economic circumscription court and the Economic Court of Appeals), while the civil ones, between individuals, even though of a commercial

nature, are solved by common law courts. This state of things affects significantly the small business entrepreneurs who cannot allow themselves

significant expenses for conducting a trial that could eventually create a state of insolvency. The potential of the alternative methods to produce

economic benefits in the settlement of disputes at less cost, compared to the costs of judicial processes, as well as the many social benefits are claimed

as advantages that should justify the adoption of policies in favour dr of alternative methods in general and mediation in particular. The practice of

mediation in the Republic of Moldova is a modest one, just as modest as the empirical studies on its economic efficiency for the justice system and

citizens. Currently, only one study is available. It was carried out by the Institute for Criminal Reforms and deals with the issue of cost-benefit of the

criminal mediation (IRP Report 2010 - Criminal Mediation in the Republic of Moldova). The study finds that besides saving financial resources, the

use of alternative means of dispute resolution involves a considerable reduction of time needed to solve a dispute, which reiterates the idea of saving

money. The average period of case resolution is 537 days, or by 20% more than when using mediation as an alternative method. The reduction of the

trial costs may be attributed not only to the individuals but also to the entire judicial system. Along with promoting the benefits of the mechanisms for

the alternative dispute solution, the solution of the economic disputes will no longer be concentrated exclusively in the courts, so that the

administrative costs (salaries, number of the auxiliary personnel, materials, logistics etc.) would also be streamlined. In this respect, the Strategy

susggests that the mediation becomes an effective and attractive alternative for litigants and for this it must be accompanied by a feasible mechanism

for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitration court decisions.

Deadlines


48

Specific intervention areas 12

months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

Responsible

institution(s)

Indicators of the implementation level

5.1.1. Taking over the examination

of economic cases by the ordinary courts, including the provision of

specialization for judges on these

types of cases

Ministry of Justice


Courts


Justice

1. The duties of the economic courts will be taken

over by the courts of common law; 2. The curriculum for the specialization in the field

of examining economic (commercial) cases,

developed;

3. Judges of courts of common law trained.

5.1.2. Develop guiding principles

for the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (criminal,

civil, commercial) and development

of arbitration and mediation as

alternative means of dispute resolution

Ministry of Justice

Mediation Council Chamber of Commerce

and Industry


Justice Bar Association

1. Guidelines for the use of alternative dispute

resolution mechanisms, developed; 2. Study developed and recommendations

formulated on development of arbitration and

mediation institutions;

3. Draft amendments to the regulatory framework on arbitration and mediation, developed and

adopted;

4. Curriculum for the training of mediators and arbitrators, developed.

5.1.3. Promote the benefits of using

alternative dispute resolution

mechanisms in the society, business environment, judicial community,

academia and the judiciary and

conducting campaigns for information and dissemination of

information about alternative

mechanisms

Mediation Council

Chamber of Commerce

and Industry National Institute of

Justice

Ministry of Justice External donors

Bar Association

1. Public information campaigns to promote

benefits of using alternative dispute resolution

mechanisms, conducted; 2. Information campaigns for the justice sector

actors, conducted;

3. Promotional materials on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, developed and distributed;

4. Public media events, conducted.

5.1.4. Create/improve the mechanisms of recognition and

enforcement of the foreign courts of

arbitration decisions

Ministry of Justice Courts


2. Mechanism of recognition and enforcement of

judgments of courts of arbitration, promoted and improved.

Expected results:

Alternative dispute resolution system strengthened;


49

The public and justice sector actors informed about the benefits of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms;

The number of arbitration and mediation service users increased;

Economic courts liquidated.

5.2. Improve the insolvency proceedings

The Government, according to the additional Memorandum on Economic and Financial Policies signed with the IMF, has pledged to modernize

the enterprise and organization insolvency and dissolution, which determines the reform of the system that organizes the work of the administrators.

With the delivery of the decision of bringing the process of insolvency, the debtor loses the right to use, dispose and manage his/her assets, it is taken

over by the insolvency manager in accordance with the regulated procedures. In this context, it is necessary to mention the importance of this actor in

the insolvency proceedings. It is exactly the insolvency manager who should have good training and, in this respect, there should be a strict regulation

of the organization of his/her work. The existing legal framework (Law on Insolvency no. 632-XV of November 14, 2001) does not regulate in a

comprehensive format the way in which the profession of manager should be performed as regards the insolvency procedure or other fiduciary

management activities, and does not include provisions related to admission into the office of the responsibility of its representatives either.

It is therefore necessary to have legal framework that would regulate the work of the managers in order to ensure the speeding of the insolvency

proceedings and carry out adequate management not only of the insolvency process, but also the dissolution of enterprises and organizations.

Improving the insolvency procedure contributes directly to creating an environment favourable for sustainable development of the economy. Having a

well-established bankruptcy procedures and an efficient management of the debtor's assets will be a factor that will increase the attractiveness of from

the foreign investment perspective.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

5.2.1. Create the necessary

regulatory framework for the

organization and efficient operation of managers of the insolvency

proceedings

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Economy

Regulatory framework developed and adopted.

5.2.2. Strengthen the status of managers of the insolvency

proceedings to ensure the stability

of the profession, increase their

integrity and professionalism


Justice

1. Regulatory framework developed and adopted; 2. Initial and continuous training of administrators

of insolvency procedure, conducted.


50

Expected results:

Management of the insolvency proceedings is more efficient and more transparent;

Strengthened status of managers of the insolvency proceedings;

Improved legal framework on the organization and operation of managers of the insolvency proceedings.

5.3. Modernize the system of keeping record and access to the information on businesses

Along with the development of the information society, the use of the information and communication technologies raise new challenges for

the government, but also provides generous opportunities for more efficient and closer to the citizen activities. The emergence of new technologies

favored the storage of information on businesses in different databases, offering the citizens free access to them too, which led inevitably to

streamlining State activities, transparency of public institutions concerning their projects and activities and facilitated the provision of public services,

while the settlement time is reduced. The authorities undertake steps towards electronic government and until then people may use certain public

services online and have access to different databases, including: Real Estate Registry, the Registry of commercial organizations, the non-profit

organizations Register, State Register of the population etc. It would be incorrect to state that this is not a significant progress in implementing the

information technologies in the service of citizens.

The strategic directions below aim at ensuring proper operation of these databases. Such operation could be achieved by creating new

mechanisms of systematization and interoperability of the information, creating, ultimately, search engines with complete and accessible to the citizens

and institutions information results, including the relevant actors in the justice sector. In this respect, it would be appropriate to create some

information connections between these databases and databases of the courts to ensure: rationalizing costs and time of the trial participants and the

courts, including the speeding of litigation resolution. Another problem that may be avoided due to modernizing these information systems is reducing

the human factor in the delivery of public services by technologizing some services, because the human factor is sometimes regarded as a cause of

corruption in the public sector.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

5.3.1. Modernise the system of

electronic registration of economic agents

Ministry of Economy

Ministry of Justice E-Governance Centre

1. Study conducted and recommendations

formulated; 2. The system of electronic registration of economic

agents modernized.


51

5.3.2. Create a unified electronic

registry for the registration of economic agents and non-profit

organizations

Ministry of Economy

Ministry of Justice E-Governance Centre


formulated; 2. Unified electronic registry created and

implemented.

5.3.3. Provide free access to

information in electronic registries of economic agents

Ministry of Economy

Ministry of Justice

E-Governance Centre

The system of access to information in electronic

registries of economic agents changed.

Expected results:

Ensured free access to the information in the electronic registries of businesses;

Modernized system of access to the information on businesses.


52

PILLAR 6. Respect for human rights in the justice sector

Specific objective: Ensure effective respect for the human rights in legal practices and policies

Actions aimed at ensuring the effective respect of human rights in the legal practices and policies will focus on five strategic directions: 6.1.

Strengthen the role of the Constitutional Court; 6.2 Capacity building of the Human Rights Centre and of the Ombudsman institution; 6.3. Strengthen

the justice system for children, 6.4. Respect for the rights of inmates; eradicate torture and ill-treatment, 6.5. Strengthen the probation system and the

prison system.

6.1. Strengthen the role of the Constitutional Court

The human rights and fundamental freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. The state is obliged not only to

respect these rights and freedoms, but also to create an operation and efficient mechanism for their protection against any violation or interference,

including the case when they would emanate from the state. The efficiency of the Constitutional Court depends not only on the powers conferred by

the Constitution, but also on the process of appointing judges, the organizational structure, procedure for examining complaints and decision making

circle of subjects entitled to notify the Constitutional Court, analytical resources, material and financial provision of the Court.

The evaluation report highlighted a number of basic issues related to the efficiency of the Constitutional Court, namely: under the law, only 11

subjects have the right to notify the Constitutional Court and the task of this institution is only to rule on the constitutionality of legislation; the citizen

does not have locus standi to notify the Constitutional Court, therefore, this institution does not participate in the management of justice; the

Constitutional Court consists of six judges and a majority of four votes to 2 is necessary to declare a law unconstitutional; the relevance of the

Constitutional Court is reduced, given the low number of cases examined by this court.

The specific interventions to strengthen the role of the Constitutional Court concerns the revising of the composition of the Constitutional

Court, the criteria and procedure for judge selection; optimize the number of judges and their term of office to ensure the independence and

professional skills of the judges; widening the circle of subjects entitled to notify the Constitutional Court so as to provide the opportunity to request

the verification of the constitutionality of normative acts by persons whose constitutional rights and freedoms have been violated; also optimize the

internal organizational structure and strengthen human resources to ensure high quality of law verification.

Deadlines


53


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

Responsible

institution(s)


6.1.1. Review the criteria for judge

selection for the Constitutional Court

Ministry of Justice

Constitutional Court

1. Criteria for judge selection for the Constitutional

Court, established; 2. Draft amendment to the regulatory framework,

developed and amended.

6.1.2. Review the procedures to

examine complaints submitted to the Constitutional Court

Ministry of Justice

Constitutional Court

1. Completed study and formulated

recommendations. 2. Draft amendment to the regulatory framework,


6.1.3. Review the range of entities entitled to notify the Constitutional

Court

Ministry of Justice Constitutional Court

1. Completed study and formulated recommendations.



6.1.4. Professional capacity building of the Constitutional Court

personnel that would ensure high

quality verification of laws

Ministry of Justice Constitutional Court

1. Curriculum, developed. 2. Trained personnel.

Expected results:

The role of the Constitutional Court strengthened;

The circle of subjects entitled to notify the Constitutional Court enlarged;

Capacity of the Constitutional Court increased.

6.2. Streamline the capacity of the Centre for Human Rights and the Ombudsman institution

To institute a non-judicial mechanism for human rights in the Republic Moldova, in 1998, under Law no. 1349-XIII of 17 October 1997 on

Ombudsmen an independent national institution was created for the promotion and protection of rights – The Centre for Human Rights, according to

the principles concerning the status of the national institutions to promote and protect human rights ("Paris Principles").

Despite some significant efforts of this institution to achieve its statutory duties, the evaluation report stated that, currently, the Centre for

Human Rights and the Ombudsman institution have a high degree of inefficiency. On the one hand, this is due to the insufficient funding of the

institution, which undermines the capacity of the Centre for Human Rights to hire staff, to make use of the equipped facilities, to carry out activities to

achieve its mandate, on the other hand – the low level of the individual and institutional capacities.

To strengthen the capacity of the Centre for Human Rights and the Ombudsman institution it is necessary to focus the efforts on: encouraging

adequate funding for the ombudsman institution, which would equip the institution with adequate resources to ensure the gradual and progressive


54

performance of the organization's operations aimed at improving it, the institutional reform of the Centre for Human Rights, increased role of the

Ombudsman as a mechanism to prevent violations of human rights and protection of these rights, as well as the support for the research and analysis

function of the Centre for Human Rights and the Ombudsman institution.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

6.2.1. Institutional reform of the Centre for Human Rights and the

Ombudsman institution, the

method of his/her appointment and

performance evaluation

Ministry of Justice Centre for Human

Rights

1. Draft amendment of the regulatory framework, developed and amended.

2. Institutional framework of the Centre for Human

Rights, amended.

3. Performance evaluation criteria, developed and implemented.

6.2.2. Assessment of real needs for

appropriate funding of the

Ombudsman institution

Centre for Human

Rights

1. Undertaken analysis and formulated

recommendations; 2. Draft amendment of the regulatory framework,


3. Appropriate funding mechanism for the

institution, established.

6.2.3. Strengthen leadership

investigative, research and analysis skills and competences of the staff

of the Centre for Human Rights

and of the Ombudsman institution

Centre for Human

Rights

1. Mechanism for communication with other

institutions, established; 2. Personnel trained.

6.2.4. Strengthen the capacity of the Ombudsman to protect and

promote children's rights

Centre for Human Rights

Capacity of the ombudsperson is strengthened and adjusted to child rights protection standards.

Expected results:

The role and capacity of the ombudsperson institution are strengthened;

Mechanism for independent financing of the institution established and financial resources in line with the real needs of the institution are ensured.


55

6.3. Strengthen the justice system for children

The justice for children remains a priority for the Republic of Moldova, given that until now the efforts undertaken to strengthen the juvenile

justice purposes have been insufficient. There is no child friendly justice system that would meet their needs currently in the Republic of Moldova; the

rights of the children-victims or witnesses in criminal cases are not well-protected; the practices to implement extrajudicial measures of case resolution

involving children are not develop; the juvenile probation system does not provide efficient services for children; the conditions of children’s detention

are not tailored to their needs; the system of collecting and analysing data on children in contact with the justice system does not ensure the monitoring

and evaluation of children’s situation and their rights; the connection between the justice sector and community social services for children is weak,

while the community support and rehabilitation of children who have broken the law or have been victims of abuse are insufficient. Similarly, there is

no specialized institutions: panels of judges, prosecutors or lawyers, specialized in cases involving the underage.

Thus, it is proposed to undertake some actions in order to specialize the children's justice system, strengthen the instruments of protection of

children victims or witnesses in criminal cases in order to ensure the rights of imprisoned children.

Specific intervention

areas

Deadlines Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

6.3.1. Ensure the

specialization of the

justice sector actors

while working with

children

Superior Council of

Magistrate,



Office,


Affairs,


State-Guaranteed

Legal Assistance,

Mediation Council,


Justice,

Ministry of Education,

Ministry of Finance,


Children’s Rights

Protection

1. Specialization of judges, prosecutors, lawyers,

probation counsellors, inspectors for the underage,

prosecution officers, personnel of the institutions

under the custody of which the underage are placed

and mediators in cases involving children that are

witnesses, victims or of those have troubles with the

law, ensured.

2. Training curriculum developed and training

courses held.

3. Rooms for hearing children in courts, prosecutor’s

offices, police stations and probation bureaus,

allocated and equipped.

4. Legal framework and procedures for children under

the age of criminal liability, adopted and

implemented.

6.3.2. Strengthen Superior Council of 1. Draft amendment to the regulatory


56

the instruments of

protecting children

who are victims or

witnesses in criminal

cases

Magistrate,



Office,


Affairs,


State-Guaranteed

Legal Assistance,

Mediation Council,


Justice,

Ministry of Education,

Ministry of Finance,


Children’s Rights

Protection

framework, developed and adopted.

2. Methodology on the examination of cases

with the involvement of children-victims and their

support within the criminal cases, developed and

implemented.

3. State-guaranteed legal assistance, support and

counselling services of the psychiatrist and the

teacher for children-victims of children witnesses in

criminal cases, ensured.

4. Legal expertise adapted to the needs of the

children-victims or children-witnesses.

6.3.3. Strengthen the

system of juvenile

probation


Justice,

Ministry of Labour,


Family,


Ministry of Finance

1. Strengthen the case management system by

probation counsellors, refer beneficiaries to the

specialized community services, operational.

2. Psychosocial programs for children,

developed and implemented.

3. Improve the recruiting system, initial and

continuous training and monitoring of the

performance of juvenile probation counsellors.

4. Financial means provided according to the

real needs of the probation system.

6.3.4. Ensure the

resect for the rights of

imprisoned children

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance



2. The mechanism for processing complaints of

children in custody revised and improved according

to the international standards in the field of children’s

rights.

3. The system for monitoring the detention period of

the children having trouble with the law, created and

operational.


57

Expected results:

- A child friendly justice system, ensuring compliance and effective implementation of children's rights in contact with the justice system;

- Justice sector actors working with and for children benefit from interdisciplinary training on rights and needs of children of different age categories;

- The legal, social, emotional, physical and cognitive development of children in contact with the justice system is addressed multidisciplinary;

- Child victims or witnesses of crimes receive optimal protection of their rights in criminal proceedings.

4. Programs for the rehabilitation of children in

custody for the reduction of recidivism, developed..

6.3.5. Strengthen the

system for collection

and analysis of data

on children who come

into contact with the

justice system

Ministry of Labour,


Family,


Superior Council of

Magistrates,


Office,


Affairs,

Ministry of Labour,


Family,

National Bureau of

Statistics

1. The process of collecting and analysing statistical

data on children having trouble with the law modified

according to the system of international indicators of

juvenile justice.

2. Data on the juvenile justice published annually.


58

6.4. Respect for the rights of detainees; eradicate torture and ill-treatment

The right of every person to freedom and security is among the supreme values of a modern and democratic state, being covered by several

international and national fundamental acts. Despite the guarantees included in the national legislation and efforts to prevent violations of the law, the

practice shows that there are cases where this right is violated. The Republic of Moldova continues to face negative social phenomena such as torture

and other punishments or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as evidenced by the alarmingly high number of applications of citizens of this country

to the European Court of Human Rights, as well as by the favourable decisions of the Court, in particular on infringement of the right to freedom and

personal security.

This, according to the evaluation report is due mainly to the existing regulatory framework, which is contradictory and inefficient; to the out-

dated system of performance indicators applied to the prosecution bodies; limited capacity of the authorities responsible for examining complaints of

torture or ill-treatment; lack of abilities, skills and appropriate training at the institutional and individual levels amount the prosecution bodies.

Thus, taking into account the fact that is not enough to recognize the problem of the violation of the right to freedom and personal security, it is

deemed to undertake the necessary measures to create a standardized system for keeping record of the arrest and detention cases; streamline the

application of the procedural measures of coercion and those of freedom the deprivation; create adequate conditions of detention; establish a

mechanism to rehabilitate victims of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

6.4.1. Increase the effectiveness in the application of coercive

procedural measures and preventive

measures to ensure effective respect

for the right to liberty and physical safety.

Ministry of Justice General Prosecutor’s

Office



Economic Crimes and

Corruption Supreme Court of

Justice

Centre for Human

Rights

1. Draft amendments to the legal framework, developed and adopted;

2. An efficient mechanism to monitor the

institutions applying coercive procedural measures

and preventive measures, created.

6.4.2. Develop technical and

material means, and infrastructure

in accordance with the European standards in all places of

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Finance


1. The amount of financial resources increased;

2. New buildings built and the old ones renovated;

3. Modern technical means to ensure torture prevention implemented.


59

deprivation of liberty.



Economic Crimes and

Corruption Ministry of Health

Ministry of Labour,


Family Ministry of Education

6.4.3. Capacity building for

therepresentatives of institutions

responsible for deprivation of

liberty (police, prison system,

CCECC, psychiatric institutions, and psycho-neurological boarding

homes) to prevent and combat

torture and ill-treatment.

Centre for Human

Rights National Mechanism

for the Prevention of

Torture

1. Continuous monitoring of places of detention,

conducted; 2. Draft amendment of the regulatory framework,


3. Units to monitor the respect for human rights

create within the institutions directly subordinated to the management;

4. Unexpected controls in places of detention;

5. National torture prevention mechanism, strengthened;

6. The staff under the National torture prevention

mechanism trained.

6.4.4. Create a standardized and protected against manipulation

system of tracking and registration

of custody, arrest and detention.




Economic Crimes and

Corruption Ministry of Justice

1. A new tracking and registration system developed and implemented;

2. The staff responsible for tracking and

registration of custody, arrest and detention trained; 3. A control and monitoring system for tracking

and registration process developed and in place.

6.4.5. Effective fight against acts of

torture and ill-treatment.


Office




Ministry of Justice

1. The relevant legal framework evened;

2. Criminal penalties for acts of torture amended;

3. The mechanism of documentation on acts of maltreatment improved;

4. Involvement of victims in the examination of

cases of maltreatment increased; 5. Training on the investigation of cases of ill-

treatment, carried out.

6. Information campaigns on the absolute


60

prohibition of torture, developed.

6.4.6. Create some effective

mechanisms to rehabilitate victims

of torture and ill-treatment.

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Labour,

Social Protection and Family,

Ministry of Justice

1. Draft amendment of the regulatory framework,


2. Victims’ Rehabilitation Fund created;

3. The number of persons who have received rehabilitation services.

Expected results:

Zero tolerance culture toward acts of maltreatment shared, recognized and promoted;

A mechanism to implement coercive procedural measures and preventive measures improved;

Places of pre-trial detention and other places of detention in line with the international standards.


61

6.5. Strengthen the probation system and the penitentiary system

The probation system was created in the Republic of Moldova in 2007, along with the creation of the Central Probation of Probation, but even

today the system is not yet strengthened and efficient. The ineffectiveness of the probation system is determined by several factors, such as: lack of

necessary skills, competencies and training for the probation counsellor of the Central Probation Office; the inefficiency of the continuing education

mechanism; the society is not involved to the necessary extent into the probation activities; formal institutional autonomy; lack of cooperation between

probation and penitentiary sub-sectors; incomplete regulations regarding the post-care services; insufficient human resources and other factors. Under

this situation, it is found that it is necessary to introduce a modern concept of probation that would ensure the balance between community safety and

the need for social rehabilitation of offenders; it is also necessary to amend the legislation in this regard.

The penitentiary system is still a problem for the Republic of Moldova, being continuously underfunded for more than 20 years. The evaluation

report has noted the following weaknesses in the penitentiary system: "overcrowding of the detention institutions; poor general conditions of detention

(sanitation, hygiene, food); work, educational and social activities difficult to have access to; health care and psycho-social assistance under the

required level; uncertain environment and poor discipline; persistent criminal sub-culture, facilitated by the high occupancy degree and maintenance of

prisoners in bedroom type rooms; inadequate scheme for the detention facilities, escort and logistical arrangements". Another problem is the way the

personnel of the penitentiary system is recruited, which is usually carried out unilaterally, most workers are former police officers and they keep their

military ranks.

The intervention measures proposed in the Strategy will be oriented on revising the hiring and recruitment policy in the penitentiary system

and full demilitarization of the penitentiary system; development and implementation of the policies on rehabilitation and social integration of

prisoners, including individual planning of term serving and creation of a progressive detention regime; promotion and implementation of ethical

standards in the probation and penitentiary system.


Deadlines

Responsible

institutions


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

6.5.1. Introduce a modern probation

concept to ensure a balance between

the community safety and need for

rehabilitation of offenders in the

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Labour,


Family


2. Draft amendments to the legal framework,

developed and approved.


62

society

Ministry of Education 3. A system of performance indicators correlated

with the new system of performance indicators for the justice sector.

6.5.2 Ensure institutional autonomy

of the probation service



Family

Ministry of Justice

1. Draft amendments to the legal framework, developed and approved.

2. Reviewed personnel scheme.

3. Reorganized probation service.

6.5.3. Ensure continuity of the

individual probation process starting

with the pre-sentence phase and

ending with post-assistance services

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Labour,

Social Protection and Family

Ministry of Economy

Courts

Local public authorities National Institute of

Justice


developed and approved;

2. Individual mechanism for treatment of beneficiaries of probation services developed and

implemented;

3. The training curriculum developed;

4. Probation counsellor and judges trained.

6.5.4. Strengthen partnerships

between the probation service and

other public or private

organisations, members of the civil

society, families and communities

to promote rehabilitation and social

inclusion of former detainees

Ministry of Justice

1. Active role of probation counsellors for use of

partnerships between the probation service with

other public or private organisations, members of

civil society, families and communities; 2. Active involvement of nongovernmental

organisations in the rehabilitation and reintegration

activity.

6.5.5. Strengthen the system of

filing and review of complaints

regarding the activity of probation services and la penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice


formulated;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and approved.

6.5.6. Review the employment and

recruitment policy of the personnel

for the penitentiary institutions and

comprehensive demilitarization of

the penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice 1. Study conducted and recommendations formulated;


developed and approved. 3. Demilitarization of the penitentiary system

achieved.


63

Expected results:

Modernized, streamlined and strengthened probation system and penitentiary system;

Increased capacity of the probation offices to manage and supervise performance of probation counsellors;

Increased capacity of the National Institute of Justice in the field of continuous training for probation counsellors;

Strengthened social inclusion capacity of ex-convicts and the number of repeated offences reduced;

Conditions in the penitentiary institutions meet the international standards.

6.4.7. Promote and implement

ethical standards within the probation services and the

penitentiary system

Ministry of Justice

Ethical standards / codes developed, adopted and

implemented.

6.4.7. Develop and implement

rehabilitation and social integration

policies, including individual

planning of sentence servicing and

creating a progressive advanced

regime of detention, supporting

cognitive-behavioural programs

Ministry of Justice Ministry of

Education

Ministry of Labour,


Family

1. Study conducted and recommendations formulated;

2. Rehabilitation and social integration policies

revised and implemented;

3. Mechanism for individual planning of sentence servicing developed;

4. Diversify and implement cognitive-behavioural

programs of personality reorientation; number of beneficiaries of these programs.

6.4.8. Provide educational,

occupational and other social

activities for detainees



Family

Ministry of Education

1. Educational, occupational and other social

activities for detainees developed; 2. Draft amendments to the legal framework

developed and approved;

3. Mechanisms to stimulate the occupational activity, applied;

4. Monitoring mechanism on the implementation of

educational, occupational and other social activities,

established.


64

PILLAR 7. A well coordinated, well managed and accountable justice sector

Specific objective: Coordinate, establish and delimitate the duties and responsibilities of the main actors in the justice sector and ensure the

inter-sector dialogue

The actions aimed at creating and building a well-coordinated, well-managed and accountable justice sector will be focused on three strategic

directions: 7.1. Coordinate actors in the justice sector; strategic planning and policy development; 7.2. Harmonize the inst itutional and legal

frameworks with the European standards of the justice sector; 7.3. Coordinate external donor assistance and information exchange with the NGO

sector.

7.1. Coordinate the activity of the actors of the justice sector; strategic planning and policy development

The specific nature of the justice sector lies in the impossibility to implement a coherent reform policy and strategy without coordination. The

evaluation report found significant deficiencies in the national efforts to coordinate the extended sector reform, which may be caused by the following

factors: the somewhat precipitated style of policy development; short-term perspective rather than longer-term regulatory initiatives and institutional

review; lack of full awareness and of the provision of budgetary implications that the planned reforms may have; lack of consultations with a wider

group of partners, including the private sector and the civil society in the implementation of reforms; relatively ambivalent attitude of the judiciary, of

the lawyer community and other sector associations in taking a more active role and exercise greater influence in policy development; lack of capacity

in case of the sector partners to make contributions to the common strategy to reform the justice sector by developing strategic chapters for each sub-

sector.

Only a well-coordinated reform can provide systemic and sustainable changes in the justice sector, provided in specific intervention areas of the

Strategy. To ensure the sustainability of the reform it is necessary to maintain a constant dialogue and an interaction between various justice sector

actors, as well as strengthen their strategic planning capacities and skills necessary for the full involvement in the implementation of reforms and quick

respons to any possible impediments to this process. It is necessary that each justice sector institution becomes a responsible participant of the reform,

acknowledging the need for interventions included in the Strategy and providing all necessary support and expertise through consultations and

expertise, which are possible thanks to the experience in different areas of the sector to ensure speed and effectiveness of the reforms in each pillar; be

responsible for general and specific objectives of the reform, not only to the professional or corporate institutions, but also to the entire society. To this

end, it is necessary to create a mechanism for reform coordination and monitoring; to improve the coordination of the drafting of regulatory acts and

public debates on them, including the involvement of different institutions and professions within the sector; to strengthen the strategic planning skills

and capabilities not only for the Ministry of Justice employees, but also for representatives of the ent ire sector; to ensure the collaboration of these

institutions in planning, developing, implementing and monitoring measures and decisions made in specific intervention areas by making an effective

information exchange between all institutions in the sector.

Deadlines


65


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

Responsible

institution(s)


7.1.1. Establish and support

working groups under the Ministry of Justice to coordinate and monitor

the implementation of each Pillar of

the Strategy

Ministry of Justice

and relevant actors of the justice sector

1. Working groups established;

2. The monitoring mechanism set up and implemented;

3. Working groups members trained.

7.1.2. Strengthen the role of the National Council for the Reform of

the Law Enforcement Bodies to

ensure an efficient dialogue between the actors of the justice

sector

Actors of the justice sector

1. The number of regular meetings of the Coordinating Council for the Reform of Law

Enforcement Bodies organized and carried out.

2. Number of documents debated at the meetings of the Council.

3. Number of reports of the working groups

monitoring the pillars of the Strategy.

4. Number of public reports of the National Council for the Reform of the Law Enforcement Bodies.

7.1.3. Reorganize and strengthen

the capacity and powers of the unit in charge of strategic planning and

monitoring within the Ministry of

Justice

Ministry of Justice

State Chancellery

1. Functions and structure analysis, completed;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and approved

3. Regulation, organigramme and personnel of the

Ministry of Justice, reviewed;

4. Internal stimulation systems applied. 5. Staff trained.

7.1.4. Capacity building for each

institution involved in the reform of the justice sector to take part in the

reform process

Ministry of Justice

and actors of the justice sector

1. Functions and structure analysis completed;

2. Internal operation regulations of the institution, amended;

3. Staff trained.

7.1.5. Create conditions for ongoing

collaboration between persons in charge of strategic planning and

monitoring at the institutions of the

justice sector

Ministry of Justice

and actors of the justice sector

1. Persons in charge of strategic planning and

monitoring appointed and trained; 2. Regular joint meetings organized and carried out.

7.1.7. Establish and maintain a system for collecting, analyzing,

and exchanging relevant

information between key institutions in the justice sector

Ministry of Justice and actors of the justice

sector

The system for collecting, analysing, and exchanging relevant information between key

institutions in the justice sector set up and

implemented.


66

Expected results:

The capacity of the Ministry of Justice for interacting, strategic planning, and monitoring strengthened;

The capacity of the justice sector actors for strategic planning, monitoring, and active involvement in the reform strengthened,

Efficiency of the information exchange between actors of the justice sector enhanced;

Justice sector reform coordinated, and its implementation monitored.

7.2. Bring the institutional and legal framework of the justice sector in line with European standards

In order to establish a well-coordinated, well-managed and accountable justice sector itis necessary to create a legislative and institutional

framework to make it compatible with the European standards. This would help address issues such as quality of the University legal education, the

quality of regulation drafting, limited public access to the legal information, the contradictions between national and Community law.

The main intervention areas aimed at harmonizing the institutional and legal frameworks with the European standards of the justice sector aim at:

improving training programs in the Law departments; improving the quality of regulation drafting in order to ensure stability, predictability and clarity

of the legislation; enhance public access to regulations by ensuring quality and accessibility of the official legal databases; improving the

harmonization of the national legislation with the EU legislation.


Deadlines

Responsible

institution(s)


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

7.2.1. Assess and improve the quality of higher law education in

Moldova through the lenses of

European good practice and Bologna principles, including by

ensuring the uniformity of the

University curriculum for Law Departments

Ministry of Education Universities


Affairs Security and

Information Service

1. External assessments carried out and recommendations developed;

2. Teaching staff trained;

3. The University curriculum amended, uniformed and implemented.

7.2.2. Improve the legislative

creation to ensure stability,

predictability, and clarity of legislation

Ministry of Justice

State Chancellery


formulated;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted;

3. Ex-ante analysis implemented effectively;

4. Staff involved in legislation development trained.


67

7.2.3. Increase public access to

legislation (databases)

Ministry of Justice

E-Governance Centre


formulated; 2. Legislation database revised and accessible.

7.2.4. Improve the process of

bringing national legislation in line

with EU legislation

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and European Integration

State Chancellery


formulated;

2. Draft amendments to the legal framework developed and adopted;

3. Institutional capacity of the Legislative Creation

Centre strengthened; 4. The staff involved in the process of bringing

national legislation in line with EU legislation

trained.

Expected results:

Prerequisites for improving University law education in Moldova created;

Higher quality of draft regulations achieved;

Public access to legislation databases increased;

Relevant national legislation brought in line with EU legislation.

7.3. Coordinate external donor assistance and information exchange with the NGO sector

Until recently, one of the major shortcomings in coordinating the international donor assistance was the absence of a forum for public consultation

to ensure a permanent dialogue between donors and international institutions to develop projects in the justice sector and contribute as well to systemic

and coordinated targeting of donor assistance to areas most in need, preventing duplication of donor assistance. Although the Ministry of Justice has

already established a permanent forum for coordination of donor assistance, it is necessary to strengthen the institutions and adapt them so that they

can coordinate external donor assistance by focusing it on certain directions to achieve its goals and for the implementation of intervention measures

established by the Strategy. It is also necessary to create a network for exchange of information between representatives of the NGO sector engaged in

the justice sector to harmonize and unify the efforts focusing them on the policy objectives. The two coordination mechanisms must be integrated and

interconnected to ensure a high level of synergy in the implementation of strategies to prevent duplication and fragmentation of donor assistance, as

well as strengthen the efforts of the NGO representatives in reforming the justice sector.

Deadlines


68


months

24

months

36

months

48

months

60

months

Responsible

institution(s)


7.3.1. Establish and maintain a

coordinated mechanism of cooperation with external donors in

the justice sector with a view to

implement the Strategy

Ministry of Justice 1. Mechanism of cooperation with external donors

adopted; 2. Regular meetings with external donors organized

and carried out

7.3.2. Establish an information exchange framework for the

representatives of the non-

governmental sector and the actors of the justice sector in the context

of Strategy implementation

Ministry of Justice Actors of the justice

sector

NGOs

1. The information exchange framework created and implemented;

2. Regular meetings of the representatives of the

non-governmental sector and the actors of the justice sector organized and carried out.

Expected results:

Donor assistance is better coordinated, focused and targeted towards priority directions in the justice sector;

Efficient coordination between the actors of the justice sector and the non-governmental sector involved in the reform of the justice sector.


69

PART 6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of the SJSR implies a range of costs and finance expenditures required for

attaining the set objectives.

The plan of actions to finance the sector shall be developed in relation to the implementation of the

Strategy.

Finance sources for the SJSR implementation will be as follows:

1) state budget, within the limits of the earmarked/approved expenditures of the institutions

involved;

2) foreign donor technical and financial assistance projects and programmes;

3) sponsorships and other sources accepted within the limits of the law.

To ensure internal coherence as regards the financing of the entire justice sector, the costs related to

the implementation of the SJSR will be linked to the provisions of the MTEF for 2012-2014.

PART 7. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION RISKS

Successful implementation of the Strategy for Justice Sector Reform depends on a number of

factors, primarily on the full involvement and commitment of the representatives of justice sector

institutions and on the strong will of the decision makers - the Parliament and the Government,

especially to undertake adoption and implementation of legislative and policy amendments proposed

within the SJSR.

Based on the social, political and current legal context, as well as the experience in implementation

of other strategic papers of the Republic of Moldova, the following major risks associated with

implementation of the SJSR and proposed solutions to avoid or mitigate them, could be highlighted:

1) Political instability. Implementation of the Strategy involves the adoption of a number of

laws, including amendments to the Constitution as well as coherent development and

implementation of these papers and a number of policies. These require strong and consistent will

from the behalf of Parliament and Government.

The solution presented by SJSR on avoiding or at least mitigating this risk is the mechanism of

adoption of the SJSR by the Parliament after public consultation and involvement of representatives

of all the ruling parties. This mechanism should ensure adherence of the Members of the

Government and Parliament to the commitments undertaken by these institutions, regardless of the

political affiliation of their members.

2) Resistance to reform from the behalf of the representatives of justice sector

institutions. In the Republic of Moldova there is already rooted the tradition of differences between

the provisions of normative acts and the practice of their implementation, primarily because of

resistance of the representatives of institutions and related professions to follow exactly the

provisions of the law, as well as permanent amendment and weaknesses of the regulatory

framework.


70

The SJSR has envisaged to mitigate this risk through a number of measures, namely: development

of a mechanism for monitoring implementation of the Strategy, including by involvement of

representatives of responsible institutions; organization of a number of training activities to explain

and implement coherently the approved amendments; promotion of zero-tolerance policies on

corruption in the justice sector; strengthening the self-management capacity of the judiciary,

prosecution and related legal professions of the judiciary system. The mechanism for coordination

of the SJSR implementation will include activities for public education and involvement of civil

society in monitoring and implementation of the SJSR.

3) Limited capacity to forecast and allocate the financial resources required for SJSR

implementation, including reduced capacity to assimilate resources allocated for implementation of

SJSR segments. Implementation of the SJSR involves both considerable financial resources and

professional human resources to forecast the required expenditures, their coordination with the

relevant institutions during the approval of the state budget, coordination in the view of achieving

external technical assistance.

The SJSR has envisaged the mechanism for coordinating the SJSR implementation, as well as

creation or strengthening the strategic planning subdivisions in every institution of the justice sector

in order to co-ordinately plan the reform processes and their implementation. Also, the Ministry of

Justice will create a specialized subdivision to implement the SJSR, which will be responsible for

coordination of foreign technical assistance provided to the justice sector and collaboration with the

State Chancellery for monitoring the allocation of national and foreign financial resources for SJSR

implementation.

In addition to these major risks, the Ministry of Justice is aware of the possibility that other

problems could occur and which could undermine the consistent implementation of the SJSR. Thus,

full implementation of the SJSR implies participation of all stakeholders – policy makers, the

executive, the judiciary, the prosecution, judiciary related legal professions, national mechanisms for

human rights’ protection, academicians, civil society, private sector, donors.

The Ministry of Justice, as an institution responsible for policy development in the field of justice,

will take all the necessary measures in order to avoid the emergence of predictable and

unpredictable risks, and in case of their occurrence will make maximum efforts to mitigate their

negative impact on the implementation of the SJSR. In this context, the Ministry of Justice will

strengthen its capacity and the capacity of involved institutions to implement the measures set in the

SJSR, as well as involvement of all the stakeholders.

STRATEGY FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM 2011- · PDF fileCouncil for the reform of the law...

Documents

Transcript of STRATEGY FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM 2011- · PDF fileCouncil for the reform of the law...